For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are 

kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO 

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 

COMMITTEE 

59th session 

Agenda item 2 

MEPC 59/2/10

 19 December 2008

 Original: ENGLISH

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 

Application for Final Approval of the Resource Ballast Technologies System 

(Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment) 

Submitted by South Africa 

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document contains the non-confidential information related to 

the application for Final Approval of the Resource Ballast 

Technologies System (Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium 

Hypochlorite treatment) in accordance with the “Procedure for 

approval of ballast water management systems that make use 

of Active Substances (G9)” adopted by resolution MEPC.169(57). 

The relevant documents and application dossier will be provided to 

the Marine Environment Division of the Organization for review by 

the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group. 

Strategic direction: 7.1 

High-level action: 7.1.2 

Planned output: 7.1.2.4 

Action to be taken: Paragraph 4 

Related documents: BWM/CONF/36 and MEPC 56/2/3 

Introduction 

1 The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water 

and Sediments states in regulation D-3 that ballast water management systems which make use 

of Active Substances to comply with the Convention shall be approved by the Organization, 

based on a procedure developed by the Organization. The “Procedure for approval of ballast 

water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9)” was adopted by 

resolution MEPC.126(53) and updated by resolution MEPC.169(57). Procedure (G9) 

requests IMO to establish a Technical Group (the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group) to 

review proposals for Basic and Final Approval submitted by Administrations, and report its 

findings to the Organization. Procedure (G9) details in section 8 the methodology to be followed 

by an Administration seeking Basic or Final Approval of ballast water management sytems. 
MEPC 59/2/10 - 2 - 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

2 South Africa submitted to MEPC 56 (MEPC 56/2/3) an application for Basic Approval of 

the Resource Ballast Technologies System. Following the assessment by the GESAMP-Ballast 

Water Working Group, Basic Approval was granted by MEPC 57 to South Africa for this system 

(MEPC 57/2/10 and MEPC 57/21). 

3 Having addressed all further testing requirements for Final Approval, as stipulated 

in Procedure (G9), and comments from the GESAMP-BWWG on the Basic Approval, 

South Africa hereby submits to the Organization, in the annex to this document, the 

non-confidential part of the manufacturer’s application dossier. The complete proposal 

for Final Approval including application dossier and relevant documents will be submitted to 

the Marine Environment Division of the Organization to be reviewed by the GESAMP-BWWG 

in accordance with Procedure (G9). 

Action requested of the Committee 

4 The Committee is invited to consider the above proposal for Final Approval and decide as 

appropriate. 

*** 
MEPC 59/2/10 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

ANNEX 

NON-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ON THE RESOURCE BALLAST 

TECHNOLOGIES SYSTEM (SOUTH AFRICA) 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Terms and definitions 

1.2 Abbreviations used in the text 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

USEPA United States Environment Protection Agency 

ECP Electrical Control Panel 

BWTS Ballast Water Treatment System 

BWT Ballast Water Treatment 

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration 

PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee 

WHO World Health Organization 

GESAMP-BWWG GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group 

IOI-SA International Ocean Institute-South Africa 

TRO Total Residual Oxidants 

FRO Free Residual Oxidants 

DBAA Dibromoacetic Acid 

POC Particulate Organic Carbon 

POM Particulate Organic Matter 

DCAA Dichloroacetic Acid 

DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

DBP Disinfection By-Products 

RBT Resource Ballast Technology 

THM Trihalomethane 

HAA Haloacetic Acid 

2 GENERAL 

2.1 Background 

Resource Ballast Technologies (Pty) Ltd. has over the past six years developed a solution to treat 

ballast water that meets the IMO standards. With the initial guidelines in mind and the 

subsequent IMO Guidelines (G8) and Procedure (G9) standards, the solution was designed to 

achieve the desired results. 

Particular attention was taken to the environmental requirements using cavitation as a primary 

treatment with small amounts of Active Substances to assist the cavitation process. 

The Active Substances (Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite) are used as an assistant for the 

cavitation process. A full-scale land-based test facility has been built at Cape Town Harbour 

(for type approval), capable of testing the Resource Ballast Technologies (RBT) systems for flow 

rates of 200 m3/hr to 1500 m3/hr. Through traditional testing methods, and with the use of 

a FlowCAM, tests conducted to date show that the RBT system consistently meets 

the IMO (G8) standards required for type-approval. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 2 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

The type approval testing process is currently under way, with assistance from the 

Anchor Environmental Consultants, University of Cape Town, the Marine and Coastal 

Management branch of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and International 

Ocean Institute – Southern Africa. 

The process is being coordinated under the supervision of the Department of Transport and the 

South African Maritime Safety Authority. 

This application dossier is hereby submitted for Final Approval of Active Substances used by 

the Resource Ballast Technologies (RBT) system (cavitation combined with Ozone 

and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment) for ballast water management to the Marine Environment 

Division of the Organization for referral to and review by the GESAMP–Ballast Water Working Group 

in terms of the “Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of 

Active Substances (G9)” adopted by resolution MEPC.169(57). 

Application for Basic Approval for the RBT system was reviewed at the fifth meeting of 

the GESAMP-BWWG held at IMO headquarters from 14 to 18 January 2008. It was 

recommended at this meeting that Basic Approval be granted for the RBT system. A number of 

comments were made on this application, including recommendations for additional 

data/information to be included in the application for Final Approval. 

The applicant’s responses to the recommendations of the GESAMP-BWWG mentioned in 

document MEPC 57/2/10, annex 5, are summarized in Table 1: 

Table 1: Responses to Recommendations of the GESAMP-BWWG contained in 

document MEPC 57/2/10, annex 5

Comment 

No. 

Comment Response 

0.4.2 Information regarding human exposure 

(HES, MEPC 56/2/2, annex 9) should be provided for 

Bromate 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraphs 3.1.3.4 

and 7.2.1 

0.4.3 More detailed chemical analysis should be provided in the 

Final Approval application for Bromoform 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 3.1.3 

0.5 Chlorinated and brominated disinfection by-products are 

the toxicologically relevant compounds generated by the 

process as they have a potential for human genotoxicity/ 

carcinogenicity. Therefore they will have to be kept below 

toxicologically critical levels (bromate < 10 μg/L; 

bromoform < 100 μg/L; chloroform < 200 μg/L, 

WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2003) 

See Application 

dossier 

paragraphs 7.2.1 

and 7.2.2 

0.6 Information concerning the Human Exposure Scenario 

(MEPC 56/2/2, annex 9) should be included in an 

application for Final Approval 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraphs 7.2.1 

and 7.2.2 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 3 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Comment 

No. 

Comment Response 

0.7 The amount of hydrogen gas produced by the electro-chemical 

unit should be documented in the application for Final 

Approval. The same applies to chlorine gas. The Group 

recommends that a de-aeration component is added 

immediately following the electrolytic unit and that a hydrogen 

gas monitor is included in the system 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 7.2.2.2 

0.9 The applicant should carefully consider the effect of 

organic matter levels on the production of by-products for 

the final operational mode(s) of the system and demonstrate 

this by appropriate measurements 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraphs 3.1.3, 

3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3 and 

3.1.4.1 

0.10 The filter cake could contain treatment by-products and 

should therefore be considered as a waste stream 

warranting further investigation as part of the 

Final Approval process 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraphs 3.1.3.1, 

3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3 and 

3.1.4.1; Tables 2-13 

0.12 The applicant must establish a PEC estimation in order to 

determine a PEC/PNEC ratio to identify a possible risk for 

the environment for the Relevant Chemicals in the 

application 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 7.3 

2.2 The description and diagram of the system are insufficiently 

clear regarding the sequence and the conditions (e.g., seawater, 

freshwater) in which the treatment technologies are to be used, 

including how the reactor is operated. Clear information on the 

operation of the entire system is required in order to be able to 

assess the hazards and risks in the application for 

Final Approval 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraphs 4.1.1 

and 4.1.2 

2.3 The control system should be described in detail including 

the sensors for Ozone and chlorine monitoring 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 4.1.2 

2.4 The Group does not consider that the list of possible 

disinfection by-products provided by the applicant is 

complete, nor does it cover the possible operating modes of 

the system, e.g., ozonation alone, electrochemical treatment 

alone or both together 

See Application 

dossier, Tables 2 -13 

2.5 A more comprehensive, measured dataset on both the 

electrochemical and Ozone generation systems plus a 

thorough evaluation of Active Substances, 

Relevant Chemicals and by-products should be provided in 

the application for Final Approval 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 4.1.2 

2.6 It was noted that the Applicant did not carry out chronic 

aquatic toxicity tests; this should be included in the dossier 

for Final Approval 

See Application 

dossier, 

paragraph 6.1.3.2 and 

Appendix 8 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 4 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

This application dossier includes the Main report (this document) and the following appendices 

(refer to the confidential part of the application dossier): 

Appendix 1: Data on the effects of Ozone on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and other biota 

Appendix 2: Data on the effects of Bromote on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and other biota 

Appendix 3: Data on the effects of Bromoform on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and other biota 

Appendix 4: Data on the effects of Free active chlorine, Chlorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite on 

aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and other biota on aquatic plants, invertebrates, 

fish and other biota 

Appendix 5: Data on the effects of Hydrogen gas on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and 

other biota 

Appendix 6: Data on the effects of Dibromoacetic acid on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and 

other biota 

Appendix 7: Report on Acute Toxicity Testing 

Appendix 8: Report on Chronic Toxicity Testing 

Appendix 9: Human Exposure Assessment 

Appendix 10: Corrosion Testing Report 

Appendix 11: Gas Test Report 

Appendix 12: Quality Assurance Plan 

Appendix 13: Laboratory Certificates 

Appendix 14: References cited in the application 

Appendix 15: Technical Manual for the RBT Ballast Water Treatment System 

3 APPLICATION DATA SET 

3.1 Identification of the Active Substance or Preparation (G9: 4.1) 

3.1.1 Preparations 

Active Substances to be used for treatment of ballast water using the RBT Reactor include Ozone 

which is produced by a generator provided on board and other disinfectants such as the hydroxyl 

radicals and hypochlorite which are introduced directly into the media using an electrochemical 

system. Neither of these processes involves the use of commercial preparations using additives. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 5 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

3.1.2 Active Substances 

In this application form, Ozone, the hydroxyl radical OH-, and hypochlorite are defined as Active 

Substances. Ozone exists in oxygen (raw material) at a ratio of 6 to 12%. Therefore, when it is 

used for treating the ballast water, it is in a state of Ozone gas. Hydroxyl radicals and 

hypochlorite are produced at the electrodes of the electrolytic cell. They are highly reactive and 

decay within a few nanoseconds. Relevant Chemical identifiers and components of Ozone gas 

and the hydroxyl radical are listed in Table 17. 

Note that Basic Approval has been recommended for use of all of these Active Substances by 

the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group (GESAMP-BWWG) (MEPC 55/2, 2006). 

Full details on the nature, toxicity and risks posed by these substances are nonetheless provided 

in this report for completeness. 

3.1.3 Relevant Chemicals (G9: 2.1.4) 

Ozone and hypochlorite are both very unstable molecules and, after injection into raw water 

(e.g., natural seawater or freshwater), decomposes very rapidly. The chemistry of the breakdown 

process in seawater, however, differs from that in freshwater because of the presence of bromide 

ion in seawater. Ballast water taken up by a vessel may include fresh and salt water and hence 

both are relevant here. 

In seawater, Ozone and hypochlorite reacts with bromide ions to produce hypobromous acid 

(HOBr) and hypobromite (OBr–) which are in equilibrium with one another 

(von Gunten & Oliveras 1998, von Gunten 2003). These compounds have disinfection 

properties. Halogenated by-products, like halogenated methanes and halogenated acetic acids, 

are also formed by a reaction with natural organic matter in the water. 

In freshwater, Ozone breaks down more slowly (minutes rather than seconds) into oxygen and 

water. The rate of decomposition increases with the presence of organic impurities and 

increasing pH. As pH increases, Ozone turns into the very short-lived (microseconds) hydroxyl 

radicals (OH) (Rice and Wilkes, 1992). Ozone also reacts with organic matter in freshwater to 

produce a range of halogenated by-products, like halogenated methanes and halogenated 

acetic acids. 

Eletrolytic treatment of seawater by the RBT reactor produces a number of Active Substances 

and Relevant Chemicals at detectable concentrations including hydroxyl radicals (OH), free 

active chlorine (Cl2) and hydrogen gas (H2). In seawater, small amounts of chlorine gas (Cl2) are 

also likely to form on the anode surface of electrochemical system due to the presence of 

chloride ions. Reactions with the cathode on the electrochemical system will also produce other 

free active chlorine species − HOCl and/or OCl- − depending on the pH. Chlorine gas (Cl2) and 

the free active chlorine species (HOCl and OCl-) will rapidly decay back into chloride ions. 

Halogenated by-products, like halogenated methanes and halogenated acetic acids may also be 

formed in the reactor due to the reaction of chlorine species with organic matter in the 

ballast water. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 6 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Eletrolytic treatment of freshwater by the RBT reactor produces Hydroxyl radicals (OH), and is a 

very reactive oxidative species with a half-life in the order of nanoseconds. Hydroxyl radicals 

react with organic matter in freshwater to produce a range of halogenated by-products, like 

halogenated methanes and halogenated acetic acids. 

Samples of water covering a range of different salt concentrations: natural seawater (~34 PSU), 

brackish water (12-28 PSU), and freshwater (<1 PSU), and differing organic content: high organic 

(DOC >>1 mg/l) and low organic content (DOC <1 mg/l) were analysed on site and/or submitted 

to independent analytical laboratories in South Africa and Switzerland for characterization 

(Tables 2 to 13). Seawater samples comprised natural seawater drawn from the Port of Cape 

Town (33 ̊55 ́06.48′′ S, 18 ̊26 ́33.49′′ E), freshwater samples were drawn from the City of Cape 

Town municipal drinking water supply and were filtered through a 50 micron spun-wound filter 

in an effort to reduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown products, and 

brackish water comprise a mixture of water from these two sources. The dissolved organic 

content (DOC) and particulate organic content (POC) of the natural seawater and municipal 

drinking water were both low (<1 mg/l) and were thus supplemented with barley malt to examine 

the effects of higher organic content on the production of Active Substances and their breakdown 

products. A broad range of DOC and POM concentrations in the “high organic” samples was 

recorded for freshwater samples (DOC: 117-567 mg/l, POM: 40-97%), brackish water samples 

(DOC: 3.3-274 mg/l, POM: 22-100%), seawater samples (DOC: 21-416 mg/l, POM: 81-100%) 

(Tables 2 to 13). 

Insight into the formation of relevant disinfection by-products (DBPs), notably trihalomethanes 

or THMs, was obtained through the addition of ascorbic acid to samples, which served to 

preserve the THMs and quench the reaction between oxidants and organic matter 

(Standard Methods, 2005). Volatile organic compounds (including THMs) were preserved 

immediately after treatment and sent to ERWAT Laboratories for analysis (Tables 2-13). 

The results indicated that there was little time for the formation of DBPs when samples were 

preserved immediately after treatment (immediate discharge scenario). A second series of tests 

were thus conducted in which samples were preserved with ascorbic acid 3 hours and 5 days after 

treatment and after which samples were analysed for the major THM disinfection by-products. 

(Tables 8 to 17). It was decided to preserve samples 3 hours after treatment as this was found to 

be the average time that it takes to fill and drain a 200 m3

 simulated ballast tank. 

Analytical methods employed by the respective laboratories for each suite of chemicals are 

described in the subsections below, and chemicals relevant to this application highlighted 

for each. 

3.1.3.1 Ozone, hypochlorite, chlorine gas and hydroxyl radicals 

During the electrolytic process chloride ions (Cl-

) are oxidized to chlorine (Cl2) at the anode and 

are then hydrolysed to hypochlorous acid. The hydroxyl radicals are also produced at the anode, 

are highly reactive and decay within a few nanoseconds. Hypochlorous acid is the primary 

Active Substance resulting from the electrolysis of seawater, and this is due to the abundance of 

chloride ions. In freshwater, the hydroxyl radical is the primary Active Substance produced by 

electrolysis. In seawater, hypochlorous acid reacts with bromide ions (Br-

) to generate 

hypobromous acid (HOBr), which is in equilibrium with hypobromite (OBr-

) 

(Katayose et al., 2007). Hypobromous acid and hypochlorous acid may then react with ammonia 

to form halogenamines (e.g., NH2Br, NHBr2 and NHBr3), which are less effective oxidants 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 7 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

(APHA 1989, Herwig et al. 2006). In this document, the oxidants resulting from chlorination 

(HOBr/OBr-

 and HOCl/OCl-) are referred to as Free Residual Oxidants (FRO), while the 

term Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) also includes the halogenamines. Total residual oxidants 

(TRO) and FRO are expressed as mg/l Cl2. 

Ozone chemistry in seawater differs markedly from that in freshwater, the main differences being 

due to the occurrence of bromide (Br-) in seawater (Herwig et al. 2006). Ozone oxidized 

bromide to form hypobromous acid (HOBr) and hypobromous ion (OBr-), which are collectively 

named bromines. Bromines are powerful oxidants with disinfection properties and are quantified 

as total residual oxidant (TRO) reported as mg/l Cl2 or Br2 (Perrins et al., 2006). 

Ozone, hypochlorite, chlorine gas and hydroxyl radicals were thus all assessed together as total 

residual oxidants (TRO) and free residual oxidants (FRO) using standard colorimetric methods 

(HACH DR2800 spectrophotometer; DPD powder pillow method). Results of these analyses are 

presented in Tables 2 to 13. 

TRO concentrations in treated ballast water ranged from 0.1-1.0 mg/l (average: 0.3 mg/l) and in 

the filter backwash water from 0.1-0.8 mg/l (average: 0.2 mg/l). FRO concentrations in treated 

ballast water ranged from 0.0-0.7 mg/l (average: 0.2 mg/l) and in the filter backwash water 

from 0.0-0.6 mg/l (average: 0.2 mg/l). No significant relationships were evident between salinity 

and TRO or salinity and FRO, although both TRO and FRO were consistently low in treated 

freshwater and variable in brackish water and full strength seawater. This is assumed to be 

related to the lack of chlorine species (in the form of NACl) in the freshwater and the rapid 

breakdown of Ozone gas introduced into the water by the RBT reactor. A highly significant 

negative correlation was evident between Dissolved Organic Carbon and TRO and FRO 

(Figure 1, P<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively), probably owing to the rapid reaction between the 

oxidants and organic matter present in the water. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Total residual oxidants (mg/ l)

Salinity (PSU)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Free rseidual oxidants (mg/ l)

Salinity (PSU)

y = -0.06ln(x) + 0.367

R2 = 0.422

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total Residual Oxidants (mg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/ l)

y = -0.05ln(x) + 0.26

R2 = 0.383

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Free Residual Oxidants (mg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/ l)

Figure 1: Effects of salinity (top) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC, bottom) on 

Total and Free residual oxidant concentrations in water treated using the 

RBT reactor 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 8 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Concentrations of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) (Figure 2) and Free Residual Oxidants (FRO) 

(Figure 3) in treated ballast water and in filter backwash were similar for all three water types 

(natural seawater, fresh water, and brackish water) covering both high (DOC >>1 mg/l) and low 

organic levels (DOC < 1 mg/l). This suggests that the filter backwash water is unlikely to be any 

more toxic to biota than treated ballast water, at least in respect of the concentrations of TRO and 

FRO present. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

SW 

Treat 

LO

SW 

Filter 

LO

SW 

Treat 

HI

SW 

Filter 

HI

FW 

Treat 

LO

FW 

Filter 

LO

FW 

Treat 

HI

FW 

Filter 

HI

Brine 

Treat 

LO

Brine 

Filter 

LO

Brine 

Treat 

HI

Brine 

Filter 

HI

Total residual oxidants (mg/ l)

Figure 2: Mean concentrations of Total Residual Oxidants (FRO) in treated ballast water 

(Treat) and in filter backwash (Filter) for three water types (natural seawater, 

fresh water, and brackish water) with differing dissolved organic content (DOC). 

LO = low DOC (<1 mg/l) and HI – high DOC (>> 1 mg/l). Error bars 

reflect ±1 SE. Each observation represents the mean of three data points. 

Actual data are included in Tables 2 to 13 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

SW 

Treat 

LO

SW 

Filter 

LO

SW 

Treat 

HI

SW 

Filter 

HI

FW 

Treat 

LO

FW 

Filter 

LO

FW 

Treat 

HI

FW 

Filter 

HI

Brine 

Treat 

LO

Brine 

Filter 

LO

Brine 

Treat 

HI

Brine 

Filter 

HI

Free residual oxidants (mg/ l)

Figure 3: Mean concentrations of Free Residual Oxidants (FRO) in treated ballast water 

(Treat) and in filter backwash (Filter) for three water types (natural seawater, 

fresh water, and brackish water) with differing dissolved organic content (DOC). 

LO = low DOC (<1 mg/l) and HI – high DOC (>> 1 mg/l). Error bars reflect ±1 

SE. Each observation represents the mean of three data points. Actual data are 

included in Tables 2 to 13 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 9 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

3.1.3.2 Trihalomethanes and other volatile organic compounds 

The concentrations of the four trihalomethanes that constitute major disinfection by-products 

(bromodichloroform, bromoform, chloroform and dibromochloroform) were determined by Rand 

Water Analytical Laboratories using the headspace method. Concentration of the full suite of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the treated, control and filter backwash samples were 

determined by ERWAT laboratories using the purge and trap technique followed by GC-MS. 

Little or no THM or other volatile organic species were detected in measurable concentrations 

(i.e. 1 μg/l) in the treated natural seawater, brackish water or freshwater samples fixed with 

ascorbic acid immediately after treatment (Tables 2 to 7). 

However, a single THM species was detected in natural seawater preserved with ascorbic acid 

after three hours and those preserved after five days (Tables 8 to 13), this being bromoform 

(Tables 8 to 13). Bromoform was also detected in the freshwater brackish water samples fixed 

with ascorbic acid after three hours and those assessed after five days (Tables 8 to 13). 

Concentrations of Bromoform in all of these samples ranged from <0.5 up to 12.0 μg/l, 

averaging 4.4 μg/l. 

A number of other THM species were detected at low concentrations in the treated brackish 

water and freshwater samples (viz. bromodichloroform, chloroform, and dibromochloroform). 

However, concentrations of these substances in the treated and filter backwash samples were 

very similar to those in the control samples which suggests that the RBT reactor was not the 

source of these chemicals and that they were present in the municipal drinking water. 

Thus, bromoform is the only THM included as a Relevant Chemical in this application. 

No significant relationships were evident between salinity and concentration of bromoform or 

between Dissolved Organic Carbon and bromoform (Figure 4). This is contrary to what has been 

reported elsewhere, where production of THMs has been shown to increase or at least remain 

static with increasing organic concentration in treated water. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Bromoform (μg/ l)

Salinity (PSU)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Bromoform (μg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC, mg/ l)

Figure 4: Effects of salinity (top) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC, bottom) on the 

concentration of Bromoform in water treated using the RBT reactor 

3.1.3.3 Haloacetic acids 

Concentration of haloacetic acids in the treated, control and filter backwash samples were 

assessed by NanoSep laboratory using GS-MS according to EPA method 552.2. Only a single 

HAA species was detected in measurable concentrations (i.e. >0.5 μg/l) in the treated natural 

seawater and municipal freshwater, this being dibromoacetic acid (DBAA, Tables 2 to 7). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 10 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Concentrations in these samples ranged from <0.5 up to 13.1 μg/l, averaging 3.16 μg/l. 

DBAA was also detected in similar concentration in the brackish water (mixture of natural 

seawater and municipal drinking water) along with a second HAA species − dichloroacetic acid 

(DCAA). However, concentrations of DCAA were similar between the control and treated 

samples suggesting that the RBT reactor was not the source of the DCAA and that it was present 

in the municipal drinking water. Thus, dichloroacetic is the only HAA included as 

a Relevant Chemical in this application. 

No significant relationship was evident between salinity and concentration of DBAA but a 

significant negative correlation was evident between DBAA concentration 

and Dissolved Organic Carbon (Figure 1, P<0.05). This is contrary to what has been reported 

elsewhere, where production of DBAA has been shown to increase or at least remain static with 

increasing organic concentration in treated water. This response seems to mirror that of the free 

and total reactive oxidants in the water and suggests that reduced concentrations of TROs 

and FROs in water with high organic content are not associated with HAAs production. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Dibromoacetic acid (μg/ l)

Salinity (PSU)

y = -0.36ln(x) + 2.426

R2 = 0.118

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Dibromoacetic acid (μg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/ l)

Figure 5: Effects of salinity (top) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC, bottom) on the 

concentration of dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) in water treated using the 

RBT reactor 

Concentrations of Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) (Figure 6) in treated ballast water and in filter 

backwash were similar for all three water types (natural seawater, fresh water, and brackish 

water) covering both high (DOC >>1 mg/l) and low organic levels (DOC < 1 mg/l). 

This suggests that the filter backwash water is unlikely to be any more toxic to biota than treated 

ballast water, at least in respect of the concentrations of DBAA present. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 11 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SW 

Treat 

LO

SW 

Filter 

LO

SW 

Treat 

HI

SW 

Filter 

HI

FW 

Treat 

LO

FW 

Filter 

LO

FW 

Treat 

HI

FW 

Filter 

HI

Brine 

Treat 

LO

Brine 

Filter 

LO

Brine 

Treat 

HI

Brine 

Filter 

HI

Dibromoacetic acid (μg/ l)

Figure 6: Mean concentrations of Dibromoacetic acid in treated ballast water (Treat) and 

in filter backwash (Filter) for three water types (natural seawater, fresh water, 

and brackish water) with differing dissolved organic content (DOC). LO = low 

DOC (<1 mg/l) and HI – high DOC (>> 1 mg/l). Error bars reflect ±1 SE. 

Each observation represents the mean of three data points. Actual data are 

included in Tables 2 to 13 

3.1.3.4 Bromate 

The concentrations of bromate in seawater, brackish water and muncipal water with high and low 

organic concentrations treated with the RBT reactor were determined. Three replicate test cycles 

were performed for each water type, and samples were analysed by EAWAG laboratory, 

Switzerland, using HPIC (High Performance Ion Chromatography) with a post column-reaction 

and UV-detection. Every sample was measured at least twice and every second sample was 

verified by spiking bromate. The quantification limit was at 5 μg/l for freshwater samples 

and 10 μg/L for seawater and brackish water samples. The higher quantification limit for the 

latter samples is due to the strong matrix interfences encountered in seawater and brackish water. 

Immediately after collection samples were placed on ice, kept in the dark and couriered 

to ERWAT laboratory, Switzerland, for analysis. 

The concentrations of bromate in all seawater and brackish water samples (high and low organic 

content) were below the detection limit of 10 μg/l, and thus fall below the USEPA and Health 

Canada guidelines of 10 μg/l (Sadique and Rodriguez, 2004). The concentration of bromate in all 

freshwater samples fell below the detection limit of 5 μg/l and thus also fall below recommended 

guidelines in drinking water (Tables 2 to 7). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 12 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 2: Chemical analysis of natural sea water samples treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Coneach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (S

to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – 

VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagent ascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of ana

(aCSIR 099P, bNanoSep 0810367, cEAWAG 01, dERWAT 2008/11/169) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL07 

Test 2 

Control 

SL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL05 

Test 

Filte

SL0

Salinity PSU 37.1 36.7 36.9 36.9 37.0 36.9 TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.67 0.28 0.01 0.79 0.78 FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.59 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.59 DOC (filtered)a mg/l 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.24 0.29 DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 0.39 0.61 0.56 0.61 0.5 0.5 TSSa mg/l 51.7 50.4 90.9 52.1 11.7 79.2 POMa % 1.849 1.236 5.455 2.207 - 5.23 Bromateb μg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd broboacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd trichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd bromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dibromoacetic acid μg/l <0.5 6.7 2.4 <0.5 13.1 6.4 bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd chlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd tribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL07 

Test 2 

Control 

SL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL05 

Test 

Filte

SL0

dVolatile organic compounds m + p - Xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromoform μg/l <1 <1 3 <1 <1 5 Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 14 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL07 

Test 2 

Control 

SL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL05 

Test 

Filte

SL0

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chloroform μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromodichloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL07 

Test 2 

Control 

SL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL05 

Test 

Filte

SL0

1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 16 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 3: Chemical analysis of natural sea water supplemented with barley malt to increase the diss

particulate organic matter (POM) content and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Coneach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Sto accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagent ascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of ana(aCSIR 100, bNanoSep 0810370, cEAWAG 01, dERWAT 2008/11/169) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH07 

Test 2 

Control 

SH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH08 

Te

Con

SH

Salinity PSU 36.7 36.5 37 36.3 36.8 36.7 36TRO 

mg 

Cl/l nd 0.14 0.16 nd 0.16 0.18 n

FRO 

mg 

Cl/l nd 0.13 0.07 nd 0.13 0.08 n

DOC (filtered)a mg/l 54 24 30 42 24 47 2DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 610 96 38 178 96 159 10TSSa mg/l 59 41 392 102 242 544 5POMa % 52 49 58 36 51 81 2Bromateb μg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nbroboacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ndichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ntrichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nbromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ndibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd 1.8 nd 0.8 1.4 <0
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH07 

Test 2 

Control 

SH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH08 

Te

Con

SH

bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nchlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ntribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ndVolatile organic compounds m + p - xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromoform μg/l <1 <1 3 <1 <1 2 <Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 18 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH07 

Test 2 

Control 

SH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH08 

Te

Con

SH

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chloroform μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromodichloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH07 

Test 2 

Control 

SH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH08 

Te

Con

SH

Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Ethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 20 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 4: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water treated with t

samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior 

drinking water was filtered through an 40 micron spun-woundfilter prior to testing and treatmen

background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type were apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accredited labor(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep Laboratories; VO

and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were preserved with t(625 mg/l). Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 105, bNanoSep 0810374, cEA

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

Tes

Cont

BL0

Salinity PSU 19.78 19.39 19.81 19.58 19.8 20.03 20.TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.4 0.32 nd 0.59 0.4 nd FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.3 0.29 nd 0.44 0.31 nd DOC (filtered)a mg/l 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.2 1 1 1 DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.TSSa % 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 POMa mg/l 41 28 45 38 34 35 38 Bromateb μg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd broboacetic acid μg/l 0.5 nd nd nd nd nd 0.5 dichloroacetic acid μg/l 1.5 4.8 <0.5 1 4.4 nd 1 trichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd bromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd dibromoacetic acid μg/l <0.5 2.3 0.6 <0.5 1 <0.5 <0bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

Tes

Cont

BL0

chlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd tribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd dVolatile organic 

compounds 

m+p-xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromoform μg/l <1 1 2 <1 1 2 <1 Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 22 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

Tes

Cont

BL0

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chloroform μg/l 17 19 19 3 9 18 18 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromodichloromethane μg/l 4 5 5 1 3 5 4 Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

Tes

Cont

BL0

Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromochloromethane μg/l 1 2 2 <1 <1 2 2 1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Ethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 24 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 5: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water, suppleme

the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic matter (POM) content, and treaas well as samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control sam

(Control). Municipal drinking water was filtered through an 40 micron spun-wound filter preffort to reduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three rep

collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, 

laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical LaNaosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – 

VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagent ascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of ana

(aCSIR 105, bNanoSep 0810374, cEAWAG 01, dERWAT 2008/11/169) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

Te

Co

BH

Salinity PSU 17.48 18.15 17.53 12.24 13.8 13.84 2TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.15 0.16 nd 0.12 0.12 nFRO mg Cl/l nd 0.13 0.06 nd 0.11 0.06 nDOC (filtered)a mg/l 12.2 3.3 0.9 75 51.8 26.6 1DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 27.4 21.1 30.8 98.4 68.4 32.8 19TSSa % 52 51 80 57 76 22 9POMa mg/l 79 75 95 71 72 100 1Bromateb μg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nbroboacetic acid μg/l nd 0.7 <0.5 nd nd <0.5 <dichloroacetic acid μg/l 5.4 4 3.2 5.1 5.6 1.9 1trichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nbromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ndibromoacetic acid μg/l 0.7 1.3 1.9 1 1.9 0.9 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

Te

Co

BH

bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd <0.5 nd <0.5 <0.5 nd nchlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ntribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd ndVolatile organic compounds m + p-xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromoform μg/l 2 2 3 3 2 1 <Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 26 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

Te

Co

BH

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chloroform μg/l 17 20 24 32 27 12 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromodichloromethane μg/l 4 5 6 8 6 3 Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

Te

Co

BH

1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromochloromethane μg/l 2 2 5 4 3 1 <1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Ethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 28 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 6: Chemical analysis of municipal drinking water treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Controfiltered through an 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in an effort t

levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type were collected and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accredited laborat(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep LaboratorServices) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were presascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 009P, 

dERWAT 2008/11/169) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

Te

Co

FL

Salinity PSU 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0TRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.09 0.07 nd 0.06 0.06 0FRO mg Cl/l 0.04 0.07 0.02 nd 0.03 0.02 0DOC (filtered)a mg/l 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.09 1.09 1.34 DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 1.38 1.52 1.76 1.57 1.38 1.48 1TSSa mg/l 5.3 2.4 4.7 3.2 2.8 3.2 2POMa μg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <Bromatebchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd broboacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd trichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd bromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dibromoacetic acid μg/l <0.5 1 3.4 <0.05 2.6 2 <bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

Te

Co

FL

chlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd tribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dVolatile organic compounds m+p-xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromoform μg/l 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 30 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

Te

Co

FL

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chloroform μg/l 41 3 7 <1 8 6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Bromodichloromethane μg/l 10 1 2 <1 2 2 Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

Te

Co

FL

Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Dibromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Chlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <Ethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 32 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 7: Chemical analysis of municipal drinking water, supplemented with barley malt to increase th

and particulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Contro

filtered through an 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in an effort t

levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type were collected and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accredited laborat(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep LaboratorServices) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were presascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 100, 

dERWAT 2008/11/169) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

T

Co

F

Sample ID Salinity PSU 0.12 1.01 2.84 4.15 0.5 1.95 0TRO 

mg 

Cl/l nd 0.07 0.07 nd 0.05 0.06 0

FRO 

mg 

Cl/l nd 0.02 0.07 nd 0.05 0.03 0

DOC (filtered)a mg/l 187 225 222 215 338 178 3DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 315 355 320 415 415 375 4TSSa % 69 84 74 68 68 97 POMa mg/l 34 39 55 83 36 52 Bromateb μg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd broboacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

T

Co

F

trichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd bromochloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dibromoacetic acid μg/l nd 1.7 2.1 nd nd 1.4 bromodichloroacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd chlorodibromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd tribromoacetic acid μg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd dVolatile organic compounds m+p-xylenes μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromoform μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Styrene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 o-Xylene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Isopropylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Propylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Chlorotoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 tert-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 sec-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4-Isopropyltoluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 34 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

T

Co

F

1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n-Butylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Naphthalene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Hexachlorobutadiene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichlorofluoromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromochloromethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chloroform μg/l 10 3 2 8 7 8 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Carbon Tetrachloride μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Fluorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Trichloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromomethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Bromodichloromethane μg/l 2 <1 <1 2 2 2 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

T

Co

F

Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Toluene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,3-Dichloropropane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Dibromochloromethane μg/l 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,2-Dibromoethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Tetrachloroethene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chlorobenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Ethylbenzene μg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 36 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 8: Chemical analysis of natural sea water samples treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Coneach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (S

to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analyti

Water Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acWater) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react wrelevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after 

ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analy

(aCSIR 198, bRand Water2008/814, cRand Water 2008/853) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL07 

Test 2 

Control 

SL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SL08 

C

Salinity PSU 35.5 34.6 35.2 35.5 35.1 35.2 TRO mg Cl/l 0.01 0.57 0.3 nd 0.65 0.15 FRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.5 0.41 nd 0.46 0.21 DOC (filtered) a mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 DOC (unfiltered) a mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 TSSa mg/l 6 70 20 5 37 12 POMa % 100 30 41 100 40 57 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform μg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <bromoform μg/l <0.543 6.2 8.2 <0.543 7.2 7.6 <chloroform μg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

SL16 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL10 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL13 

Test 2 

Control 

SL17 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL11 

Test 2 

Filter 

SL14 

C

dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <

 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <

Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples 5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

SL16 

Test 1 

Treat 

SL10 

Test 1 

Filter 

SL13 

Test 2 

Control 

SL17 

Test 2 

Treat 

SL11 

Test 2 

Filter 

SL14 

T

C

dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <

 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <

Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples bromodichloroform % 0 0 0 0 0 0 bromoform % 0 54.8 22.0 0.0 - 15.8 chloroform % 0 0 0 0 0 0 dibromochloroform % 0 0 0 0 0 0 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 38 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 9: Chemical analysis of natural sea water, supplemented with barley malt to increase the diss

particulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Coneach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (S

to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR AnalytiWater Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic ac

Water) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react w

relevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after 

ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analy(aCSIR 198, bRand Water2008/844, cRand Water 2008/857) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

SH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH07 

Test 2 

Control 

SH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH08 

C

Salinity PSU 34.9 34.4 35.7 34.4 35.2 35.2 TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.11 0.18 nd 0.28 0.19 FRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.1 0.09 DOC (filtered)a mg/l 92 567 58 416 394 401 DOC (unfiltered)a mg/l 1594 367 79 575 472 283 TSSa mg/l 223 207 293 140 142 324 POMa % 100 100 100 81 100 100 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform μg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <bromoform μg/l <0.543 2.2 12 <0.543 10 3.8 <chloroform μg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

5-Day Old samples Test 1 

Control 

SH16 

Test 1 

Treat 

SH10 

Test 1 

Filter 

SH13 

Test 2 

Control 

SH17 

Test 2 

Treat 

SH11 

Test 2 

Filter 

SH14 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <

bromoform μg/l <0.543 0.83 11 <0.543 9.9 1.1 <

chloroform μg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <

dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <

Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples 

bromodichloroform % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

bromoform % 0.0 -62.3 -8.3 0.0 -1.0 -71.1 

chloroform % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

dibromochloroform % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 40 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 10: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water treated with 

as samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples colle

Municipal drinking water was filtered through a 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testreduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate saapproximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRlaboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical LaboratoriesServices). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescrib

to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter to pr

products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after which they were preserv

submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (a

cRand Water 2008/853) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

C

Salinity PSU 19.85 19.62 20.23 22.3 22.2 20.15 TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.43 0.24 nd 0.27 0.19 FRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.43 0.17 nd 0.16 0.13 DOC (filtered) a mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 DOC (unfiltered) a mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 TSSa mg/l 45 10 17 15 12 37 POaM % 89 62 54 66 60 37 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform μg/l 2.6 3 2.9 2 2.6 2.9 bromoform μg/l <0.543 8.6 8.9 <0.543 8.4 10 <chloroform μg/l 14 16 14 10 13 15 dibromochloroform μg/l 1.8 2.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.6 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

THMs in samples produced via RBT treatment (treat/filter – control) 

Test 1 

Control 

BL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL07 

Test 2 

Control 

BL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL08 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l - 0.4 0.3 - 0.6 0.9 bromoform μg/l - 8.6 8.9 - 8.4 10 chloroform μg/l - 2 0 - 3 5 dibromochloroform μg/l - 0.7 0.6 - 0.7 1.1 5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

BL16 

Test 1 

Treat 

BL10 

Test 1 

Filter 

BL13 

Test 2 

Control 

BL17 

Test 2 

Treat 

BL11 

Test 2 

Filter 

BL14 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l 3.1 3.5 3.4 2.7 2.9 md bromoform μg/l 0.8 12 11 0.59 7 md chloroform μg/l 17 18 17 16 15 md dibromochloroform μg/l 2.2 3.4 3.1 1.9 2.6 md Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples bromodichloroform % 19.23 16.67 17.24 35.00 11.54 bromoform % 47.33 39.53 23.60 8.66 -16.67 chloroform % 21.43 12.50 21.43 60.00 15.38 dibromochloroform % 22.22 36.00 29.17 26.67 18.18 Note: md denotes missing data due to incomplete laboratory report supplied by Rand Water 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 42 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 11: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water, suppleme

the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic matter (POM) content, an(Treat), as well as samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and ctreatment (Control). Municipal drinking water was filtered through a 40 micron spun-

treatment in an effort to reduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown proeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately o

submitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Rand Water Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascor

Rand Water) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown a

produce to relevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. CertifAppendix 13 (aCSIR 198, bRand Water2008/844, cRand Water 2008/857 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

C

Salinity PSU 19.6 19.5 19.6 19.9 19.5 19.5 TRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.1 0.13 FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.08 0.1 nd nd 0.09 DOC (filtered) a mg/l 232 260 264 218 241 274 DOC (unfiltered) a mg/l 261 311 300 233 267 322 TSSa mg/l 147 96 434 109 124 306 POMa mg/l 98 97 87 100 100 85 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <bromoform <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.63 <chloroform 11 13 12 11 13 13 dibromochloroform <1.168 <1.169 <1.170 <1.171 <1.172 <1.173 <
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

THMs in samples produced via RBT treatment (treat/filter – control) 

Test 1 

Control 

BH01 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH04 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH07 

Test 2 

Control 

BH02 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH05 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH08 

T

C

B

bromodichloroform μg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 bromoform μg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 chloroform μg/l - 2 1 - 2 2 dibromochloroform μg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

BH16 

Test 1 

Treat 

BH10 

Test 1 

Filter 

BH13 

Test 2 

Control 

BH17 

Test 2 

Treat 

BH11 

Test 2 

Filter 

BH14 

T

C

B

bromodichloroform μg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <bromoform μg/l <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.63 <chloroform μg/l 14 14 14 0 16 15 dibromochloroform μg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples bromodichloroform % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 bromoform % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 chloroform % 27.27 7.69 16.67 -100.00 23.08 15.38 dibromochloroform % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 44 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 12: Chemical analysis of municipal drinking water treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as w

filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Con

was filtered through a 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in 

background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, Flaboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POC – CSIR Analytical Laboratories

Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescrito allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter t

by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after which they were preand submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysis are included 

bRand Water2008/841, cRand Water 2008/853) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

C

Salinity PSU 0.18 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.1 0.15 TRO mg Cl/l nd nd nd 0.01 0.01 0.1 FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.02 nd 0.03 0.02 0.04 DOC (filtered) a mg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 DOC (unfiltered) a mg/l 2 2 2 2 2 3 TSSa mg/l 14 7 5 11 7 6 POMa % 48 104 86 75 100 100 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform μg/l 6.5 8.7 7.8 7.2 7.7 7.3 bromoform μg/l 1.8 2.8 2.6 1.4 2.1 2.6 chloroform μg/l 32 38 35 34 35 36 dibromochloroform μg/l 4 4.7 5 4 4.7 4.9 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

THMs in samples produced via RBT treatment (treat/filter – control) 

Test 1 

Control 

FL01 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL04 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL07 

Test 2 

Control 

FL02 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL05 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL08 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l - 2.2 1.3 - 0.5 0.1 bromoform μg/l - 2.8 2.6 - 2.1 2.6 chloroform μg/l - 6 3 - 1 2 dibromochloroform μg/l - 0.7 1 - 0.7 0.9 5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

FL16 

Test 1 

Treat 

FL10 

Test 1 

Filter 

FL13 

Test 2 

Control 

FL17 

Test 2 

Treat 

FL11 

Test 2 

Filter 

FL14 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l Md 8.6 8.5 7.3 9.2 7.6 bromoform μg/l Md 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.8 chloroform μg/l md 41 39 37 41 37 dibromochloroform μg/l md 5.7 5.4 4.5 5.7 5.3 Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples bromodichloroform % Md -1.15 8.97 1.39 19.48 4.11 bromoform % Md -3.57 3.85 35.71 23.81 7.69 chloroform % md 7.89 11.43 8.82 17.14 2.78 dibromochloroform % md 21.28 8.00 12.50 21.28 8.16 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX Page 46 I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc Table 13: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water, suppleme

the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic matter (POM) content, an(Treat), as well as samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and ctreatment (Control). Municipal drinking water was filtered through a 40 micron spun-treatment in an effort to reduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown proeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately o

submitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Rand Water Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascor

Rand Water) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown a

produce to relevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. CertifAppendix 13 (aCSIR 198, bRand Water2008/844, cRand Water 2008/857) 

Chemical 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

C

Salinity PSU 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.17 0.2 0.18 TRO mg Cl/l nd nd 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.01 FRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.04 nd 0.03 0.03 nd DOC (filtered) a mg/l 416 394 401 117 274 284 DOC (unfiltered) a mg/l 416 394 417 117 274 289 TSSa mg/l 214 151 237 93 137 202 POMa % 45 54 38 56 75 82 Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform μg/l 4 4.2 4.6 3.8 4.6 4.2 bromoform μg/l 0.67 0.8 0.8 <0.543 0.75 0.8 chloroform μg/l 30 31 33 32 33 32 dibromochloroform μg/l 1.2 1.5 1.5 <1.168 1.5 1.5 
I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

THMs in samples produced via RBT treatment (treat/filter – control) 

Test 1 

Control 

FH01 

Test 1 

Treat FH04 

Test 1 

Filter FH07 

Test 2 

Control 

FH02 

Test 2 

Treat FH05 

Test 2 

Filter FH08 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l - 0.2 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 bromoform μg/l - 0.13 0.13 - 0.75 0.8 chloroform μg/l - 1 3 - 1 0 dibromochloroform μg/l - 0.3 0.3 - 1.5 1.5 5-Day Old samples c Test 1 

Control 

FH16 

Test 1 

Treat FH10 

Test 1 

Filter FH13 

Test 2 

Control 

FH17 

Test 2 

Treat FH11 

Test 2 

Filter FH14 

T

C

bromodichloroform μg/l 6 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.5 bromoform μg/l <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.6 <0.543 <0.543 <chloroform μg/l 30 28 27 30 29 31 dibromochloroform μg/l 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.2 Percentage increase/decrease of THMs in 5-day old samples bromodichloroform % 50.0 28.6 19.6 52.6 26.1 31.0 bromoform % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 chloroform % 0.0 -9.7 -18.2 -6.3 -12.1 -3.1 dibromochloroform % 108.3 60.0 53.3 122.6 60.0 46.7 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 48 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

3.1.4 Breakdown of Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals 

3.1.4.1 Residual oxidants (Hypochlorite and Ozone) 

The decay of residual oxidant concentrations (total and free) was measured in natural seawater 

and brackish water under simulated ballast water treatment conditions. Total residual oxidants 

and free residual oxidants were measured using standard colorimetric methods (HACH DR2800 

spectrophotometer; DPD powder pillow method). Decay rates are very high within the first hour 

after treatment, and since it takes approximately 1 hour to fill a 200 m3 simulated ballast tank 

a 50 L sample was taken directly from the ballast pipe in order to monitor decay immediately 

after treatment. TRO and FRO concentrations were also measured on days 1, 2 and 5 after 

treatment for seawater samples. In brackish water samples TRO and FRO concentrations were 

below detection limits after 180 min and thus measurements were not taken on days 1, 2, and 5. 

The decay of residual oxidants was modeled according to the first order decay assumption 

as follows: 

C = C0e

-kt 

where 

C = the concentration at time t 

C0 = initial chlorine concentration 

k = decay rate in min-1 

t = time in min 

(EPA/600/R-01/110) 

High k values indicate faster decay or residual oxidants. The decay constants for each water type 

are shown in Table 14. 

Decay rates were only determined for seawater and brackish water with low organic content. 

Previous studies revealed that TRO and FRO concentrations were very low in seawater 

(0.14 -0.16 mg/l) and brackish water (0.15-0.18) with high organic content (see Tables 3, and 5), 

and thus it was not possible to determine decay rates for TROs since these concentrations were 

nearing the detection limits of the HACH DR2800 spectrophotometer. The low 

TRO concentrations in samples with high organic content were attributed to the rapid reaction 

of TROs with organic matter. Decay rates were not calculated for freshwater 

as TRO concentrations were barely above 0.09 mg/l in both low and high organic water. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 49 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Time (min)

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

Total residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l)

 TRO (A)

 TRO (B)

 TRO (C)

Figure 7: Short-term decay of total residual oxidant in natural seawater 

(37.1-37.3 PSU, DOC <1 mg/l, POM <1%, TSS 6 mg/l) treated with the 

RBT reactor, measured as total active chlorine using the DPD method. TRO (A), 

TRO (B) and TRO (C) denote different test samples 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Time (min)

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Free Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l)

 FRO (A)

 FRO (B)

 FRO (C)

Figure 8: Short-term decay of free residual oxidant in natural seawater 

(37.1-37.3 PSU, DOC <1 mg/l, POM <1%, TSS 6 mg/l) treated with the 

RBT reactor, measured as total active chlorine using the DPD method. FRO (A), 

FRO (B) and FRO (C) denote different test cycles 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 50 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Time (min)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

Total Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l)

 TRO (A)

 TRO(B)

 TRO(C)

1 day 2 days 5 days

Figure 9: Long-term decay of total residual oxidant in natural seawater 

(37.1-37.3 PSU, DOC <1 mg/l, POM <1%, TSS 6 mg/l) treated with the 

RBT reactor, measured as total active chlorine using the DPD method, over 

a 5-day period. TRO (A), TRO (B) and TRO (C) denote different test cycles 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Time (min)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Free Residual Oxidant (mgCl/l)

 FRO (A)

 FRO (B)

 FRO (C)

1 day 2 days 5 days

Figure 10: Long-term decay of free residual oxidant in natural seawater 

(37.1-37.3 PSU, DOC <1 mg/l, POM <1%, TSS 6mg/l) treated with the 

RBT reactor, measured as total active chlorine using the DPD method over 

a 5-day period. FRO (A), FRO (B) and FRO (C) denote different test cycles 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 51 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time (min)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

Total Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l)

 TRO (A)

 TRO (B)

 TRO (C)

Figure 11: Short-term decay of total residual oxidant in a mixture natural sea water and 

municipal drinking water (salinity = 21.48-21.86 PSU DOC <1 mg/l, 

POC <1 mg/l, TSS 4-5 mg/l) treated with the RBT reactor, measured as total 

active chlorine using the DPD method. TRO (A), TRO (B) and TRO (C) denote 

different test cycles 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Time (min)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Free Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l)

 FRO (A)

 FRO (B)

 FRO (C)

Figure 12: Short-term decay of free residual oxidant in a mixture natural sea water and 

municipal drinking water (salinity = 21.48-21.86 PSU, DOC <1 mg/l, 

POC <1 mg/l, TSS 4-5 mg/l) treated with the RBT reactor, measured as total 

active chlorine using the DPD method. FRO (A), FRO (B) and FRO (C) denote 

different test cycles 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 52 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Table 14: Exponential decay equations for TRO and FRO in treated ballast water 

Seawater-low organic 

 Test Cycle Exponential equation k (min-1) r p 

A TRO(A) = 0.6023e-0.009t 0.0090 -0.89 0.0004 

B TRO(B) = 0.4933e-0.0081t 0.0081 -0.89 0.0006 

Total Residual 

Oxidant Decay 

C TRO(C) = 0.5292e-0.010t 0.0095 -0.91 0.0002 

A FRO(A) = 0.4425e-0.01808t 0.0108 -0.94 0.00003 

B FRO(B) = 0.3896e-0.0083t 0.0080 -0.85 0.0039 

Free Residual 

Oxidant Decay 

C FRO(C) = 0.3682e-0.0086t 0.0086 -0.94 0.0002 

Brackish water-low organic 

 Test Cycle Exponential equation k (min-1) r p 

A TRO(A) = 0.3964e-0.0089t 0.0089 -0.95 0.00001 

B TRO(B) = 0.4275e-0.0075t 0.0075 -0.92 0.0002 

Total Residual 

Oxidant Decay 

C TRO(C) = 0.688e-0.0167t 0.0167 -0.98 0.00000 

A FRO(A) = 0.4912e-0.0179t 0.0179 -0.98 0.00000 

B FRO(B) = 0.4904e-0.0142t 0.0142 -0.98 0.00000 

Free Residual 

Oxidant Decay 

C FRO(C) = 0.4379e-0.012t 0.0120 -0.93 0.00004 

Average (± SD) TRO and FRO decay rates for seawater were 0.00887 (±0.0007) min-1

and 0.00913 (±0.0014) min-1, respectively. Average (± SD) TRO and FRO decay rates for 

brackish water were 0.0110 (±0.00496) min-1 and 0.0147 (±0.00298) min-1, respectively. 

Decay rates were thus faster for FROs than TROs, and decay rates for brackish water were 

greater than those for seawater. It is evident from the above study that TRO and FRO decrease 

most rapidly 30 minutes after treatment ad reach concentrations of <0.1 mg/l after 3 hours. 

3.1.4.2 Trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids 

The concentrations of trihalomethanes (THMs) were measured immediately after treatment 

and 5 days after treatment in order to detrmine if there was any change in concentrations. 

Samples for THM analysis were preserved with 5.2 g ascorbic acid/l, stored in the dark at ~4oC 

and sent to Rand Water Analytica Laboratory for analysis. THMs in seawater, freshwater and 

brackish water with both high and low organic content were analysed. Figure 13 shows the 

average total THM concentrations in these water types for both treated water and filter backwash 

on days 0 and day 5. For the majority of samples the concentrations of THMs in the treated water 

are slightly higher on day 5, but the increase is not significant. The concentrations of THMs in 

filter discharge for seawater low organic, brackish water high organic and freshwater low organic 

also increased slightly but not significantly. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 53 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

SLT SLF SHT SHF BLT BLF BHT BHF FLT FLF FHT FHF

Total THM concentration (ug/l)

0 Day

5 Day

Figure 13: Average (± SD) concentration of total trihalomethanes (THMs) in 0-day 

and 5-day old water samples treated with the RBT reactor as well as samples 

collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter). SLT = seawater low 

organic (treat), SLF = seawater low organic (Filter). SHT = seawater high 

organic (treat), SF = seawater high organic (Filter). BLT = brackish water low 

organic (treat), BLF = brackish water low organic (Filter). BHT = brackish 

high organic (treat), BHF = brackish high organic (Filter). FLT = freshwater 

low organic (treat), FLF = freshwater low organic (Filter). FHT = freshwater 

high organic (treat), FHF = freshwater high organic (Filter) 

Below is a summary of mean (± SD) concentrations of total THMs for each test cycle (see raw 

data in Tables 8 to 3). It is evident that there is an increase in THMs over a 5-day period in 

seawater, brackish water and freshwater (low organic), but this increase is not significant. 

For high organic water there is a slight decrease in total THM concentration for seawater (treat 

and filter), as well as in freshwater (filter). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 54 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Table 15: Mean (± SD) total THM concentrations (μg/l) in 0-day and 5-day old samples 

treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as well as samples collected when the filter 

unit was backwashed (Filter) 

 Treatment Cycle 

Water 

Type 

Seawater- Low organic Brackish water -Low 

organic 

Freshwater-Low organic 

Sample Treat Filter Treat Filter Treat Filter 

0 Day 

6.7 (± 0.5) 8.6 (± 1.25)

11.73 

(±0.95) 12.83 (3.73) 

9.63 

(±4.66) 8.43 (±3.13) 

5 Day 

7.4 (± 3.11) 9.6 (±0.69 16.3 (±3.2) 10.01 (±8.8) 

14.0 

(±2.26) 10.17 (±3.64)

 Treatment Cycle 

Water 

Type 

Seawater- High organic Brackish water -High 

organic 

Freshwater-High organic 

Sample Treat Filter Treat Filter Treat Filter 

0 Day 

6.1 (±5.52) 

7.43 

(±4.18) 1.33 (±1.15) 1.33 (±0.58) 

2.46 

(±1.38) 2.59 (±1.5) 

5 Day 5.37 

(±6.47) 5.7 (±4.99) 4.0 (±1.0) 3.33 (0.58) 

2.46 

(±0.81) 2.11 (±0.96) 

The concentrations of THMs and haloacetic acids (HAAs) 3 hours after treatment and 24 hours 

after treatment were also recorded during the 28-day juvenile fish growth test (Appendix 8). 

These results give us an indication of THM and HAA formation/breakdown 24 hours after 

treatment for seawater with a low organic content. The major THM present was bromoform, and 

the major HAA presaent was dibromoacetic acid. The change in bromoform and dibromoacetic 

acid concentrations after 24 hours is shown below (Figure 14 and Table 16). 

It is evident that bromoform concentrations increase after 24 hours, however the difference in not 

significant at p = 0.05 (p = 0.314, n = 4), whereas average HAA concentrations decrease slightly 

but the difference is not significant (p=0.622, n=4). 

Figure 14: Average concentrations of bromoform (BF) and dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) 

three hours after treatment and 24 hours after treatment of seawater 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 55 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Table 16: Concentrations (μg/l) of bromoform and dibromoacetic acid in seawater 3 hours 

and 24 hours after treatment. Results taken from 28-day juvenile fish growth test 

(Appendix 8). Salinity = 36.0 PSU, DOC <1 

 Replicate 

Chemical 1 2 3 4 Mean SD 

Bromoform (3h) 9.4 0.63 9.8 7.3 6.8 4.2 

Bromoform (24h) 11 10 15 13 12.3 2.2 

Dibromoacetic acid (3h) 2 2.5 3.2 4.3 3.0 1.0 

Dibromoacetic acid (24h) 2.5 0.5 3.1 3.6 2.4 1.4 

3.1.5 Summary of Relevant Chemicals 

From chemical analyses of seawater, brackish water and freshwater samples treated using the 

RBT reactor, the chemicals substances listed in Table 17 have been identified as being relevant 

(i.e. Active Substances or Relevant Chemicals). Relevant Chemical identifiers of these 

substances as well as data on their effects on biota are provided in Appendix 1. 

Table 17: Components and relevant details (chemical identifiers) for Active Substances 

(AS) and Relevant Chemicals (RC) identified in water treated with the 

RBT reactor 

Chemical 

Name 

CAS 

number 

Molecular 

Mass 

Empirical 

formula 

Structural 

formula 

Maximum 

concentration 

in treated 

ballast water 

AS 

RC 

other 

Ozone (TRO) 10028-

15-6

48 O3 O=O–O 0.8 mg/l* AS 

Sodium 

Hypochlorite 

(TRO) 

7681-52-

9

74.4 NaClO 0.8 mg/l* AS 

Hydroxyl 

radical 

3352-57-

6

17.01 HO O*H - AS 

Hydrogen gas 01333-

74-0

2.015 H2 H – H - RC 

Chlorine gas 7782-50-

5

70.9 Cl2 Cl–Cl - RC 

Bromoform 75-25-2 252.73 CHBr3 12.0 μg/l RC 

Dibromoacetic 

acid 

631-64-1 217.84408 C2H2Br2O2 13.1 μg/l RC 

*

 This is the maximum concentration of Total Residual Oxidants in water samples treated with the RBT reactor. 

Note that Ozone is dosed at an estimated rate of 1 mg/l. Thus, concentrations of TROs in the reactor chamber 

(the sum of all TROs including Ozone) are probably somewhat higher than those reported here but these 

substances decay so rapidly (within a few minutes) that by the time measurements can be taken concentration 

have already fallen below 1 mg/l. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 56 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

3.1.6 Other Chemicals 

No other Relevant Chemicals are produced by the RBT reactor. 

3.2-3.6 Data on effects on aquatic plants, invertebrates and fish, and other biota, including 

sensitive and representative organisms (G9: 4.2.1.1) 

Data under this heading are included in Appendices as indicated below: 

Appendix 1: Ozone 

Appendix 2: Bromote 

Appendix 3: Bromoform 

Appendix 4: Free active chlorine, Chlorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite 

Appendix 5: Hydrogen gas 

Appendix 6: Dibromoacetic acid 

4 USE OF THE ACTIVE SUBSTANCE OR THE PREPARATION 

4.1 The manner of application 

The RBT reactor uses mechanical cavitation as the main treatment method, to enhance this 

cavitation phenomena, gases are added to the water being treated. It should be noted that 

the RBT reactor system employs only small amounts of Ozone gas, hydrogen gas and oxygen gas 

within the methodology of the equipment. These gases were chosen as a result of 1) Ozone has a 

sterilizing effect in water; 2) hydrogen and oxygen are liberated from the electrodes; 3) low 

quantities of NaOCl are produced from the electrodes. The NaOCl also has a sterilizing effect 

in water. 

Due to the above, it will be noticed that the levels of these gases and Active Substances are much 

less than for other BWT systems that use similar Active Substances to achieve the same results. 

4.1.1 The RBT test facility 

The RBT test facility is situated on M-Berth within the Port of Cape Town, South Africa. 

The site was selected, as it provides ready access to natural sea water, fresh water, and electricity 

for operating the pumps and auxiliary equipment. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 57 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Schematic diagram of the RBT test facility is shown below. 

Figure 15: Schematic Diagram of the RBT test facility 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 58 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

4.1.1.1 Description of the RBT test facility and operation 

The RBT reactor is fitted to the suction side of the pump, in order to create sufficient mechanical 

cavitation. Harbour water is drawn into the system directly form the harbour through a 12-inch 

pipe, fitted with a foot valve (No.2) to prevent the water from returning to the harbour. 

A strainer is fitted to the foot valve, (No.1) (this represents the sea chest that will be found 

on board a vessel). A manually operated 12-inch geared valve is fitted to the intake pipe, to 

facilitate the regulation of water flow from both the harbour and also the fresh water tank that 

feeds into the 12-inch uptake pipeline. Fresh water is delivered into the pipeline by means of 

a 5-inch saddle fitted to the 12-inch line. Flow of fresh water into the reactor is regulated by 

means of a manual geared valve. In order to allow for vibration and movement that could occur 

as a result of pump operation and tidal action on the 12-inch uptake pipe, a rubber bellows (No.3) 

has been incorporated into the uptake pipeline. 

A temperature sensor (a) has been installed into the uptake line to allow for temperature 

monitoring of the ballast water prior to undergoing treatment. 

A series of valves (Nos.7 and 8) and reducers are installed to facilitate the change over from 

the 10-inch reactor or the 6-inch reactor. This allows for testing to be undertaken on both 

the 6-inch reactor and also the 10-inch reactors. 

A vacuum pump is connected to the uptake pipeline immediately before the 6-inch reactor, to 

allow for water control samples to be taken. Two reactor chambers that form one reactor system 

are installed at this point. 

4.1.1.2 Reactor chambers description 

The reactor consists of various chambers to allow for certain effects and treatment. The test units 

are fabricated from stainless steel with flanged couplings. Ozone gas mixed with water via the 

Ozone chamber (No.9) is infused into the reactor as the first stage of the treatment process 

(No.10). An electrode chamber into which the electrodes are fitted follows, these electrode 

chambers are of a much larger diameter to the 6-inch inlet in order as not to impede the flow of 

water through the system. The electrodes are powered via the Electro Chemically Activated 

(ECA) rectifier (No.6). A cavitation chamber makes up the next section of the RBT reactor, this 

cavitation chamber is of a larger diameter than the 6-inch inlet pipeline to ensure that the flow 

rate is not affected. Cavitation inserts are housed within the cavitation chamber. A reducing cone 

returns the outer diameter to 6 inches. The following reactor chambers are similar and of the 

same design except for the Ozone inlet ports, which are omitted. 

4.1.1.3 Ozone flow description 

Two Ozone generators (No.24) are installed to supply Ozone gas to the system. Water is diverted 

from the pressure side of the pump; manual valves (Nos.21 and 22) are installed to facilitate the 

operation of the venturi and to allow for testing of the Ozone generation equipment. A 50 mm 

pipeline directs the flow of the mixed water and gas to the venturi. Ozone gas is drawn into the 

venturi (No.23) after which the water and gas mixture are directed into a contact chamber (No.9) 

The Ozone contact chamber mixes the gas and water and ensures that the Ozone gas is infused 

into the water eliminating large bubbles that could possibly affect the efficient operation of the 

water pump. This Ozone infused water is led into the RBT reactor. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 59 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

At this point an 8-inch pipeline delivers the treated water to the electrical pump. A gear operated 

valve (No.17) is fitted to allow for isolation of the reactor in the event that changes or 

maintenance to the unit needs to be undertaken. Valve (No.19) is installed to facilitate any 

possible maintenance to the installed pump. Valves (No.25) allow for the selection of the water 

flow either back to the harbour, or into the filter Ballast Safe Filter (No.27) and into the ballast 

water simulator holding tanks or back into the harbour. Using valves (No.28) to direct the water 

into the relevant outlet. 

4.1.2 The RBT reactor 

4.1.2.1 General information 

The RBT reactor incorporates three main treatment methods to achieve the required 

IMO treatment efficacy. The main treatment method is Mechanical Cavitation. Cavitation is 

enhanced by the addition of Ozone gas, hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The gases are added in 

various manners. The Ozone gas is generated by a specifically designed Ozone Generator. 

Ozone gas is formed within the Ozone Cell that forms part of the Ozone generator. Hydrogen 

and Oxygen are liberated from a set of electrochemical electrodes, along with Sodium 

Hypochlorite (NaOCl). NaOCl, together with the Ozone gas, has a sterilizing effect on the 

ballast water. Residuals of these Active Substances thus assist in maintaining a sterile 

environment within the ballast tanks. An outline of the RBT Reactor is shown in Appendix 15 

and comprises two chambers, i.e. Chamber 1 and Chamber 2. The two section of 

the RBT reactor are bolted together to form a single unit. A water/chemical resistant gasket 

fitted at the junction between the two chambers ensures a waterproof seal between the chambers. 

Connection to the vessel’s ballast water piping is via the standard flanges at the inlet and outlet to 

the Reactor. Ozone gas is fed into Chamber 1 via two gas inlets which also has a bank of 

electrodes while Chamber 2 contains the cavitation inserts. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 60 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Figure 16: Diagram of the RBT reactor 

An illustration of Chamber 1: Once the ballast water pump is incited, ballast water flows into the 

first chamber of Chamber 1. Ozone gas produced by the Ozone generators, in the 

Electrical Control Panel is directed into the contact chamber where it is infused into the water 

that is then directed to the Ozone gas inlets. Incorporated into the Chamber 1 are eight 

Electrode Housings which contain the electrodes or chlorination elements. The electrodes are 

connected in series and connected by heavy duty electrical cable to an Electro Chemically 

Activated Rectifier (Trade name for the high frequency rectifier). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 61 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

.

Figure 17: Chamber 1 of the RBT reactor 

4.1.2.2 Typical Treatment sequence for the RBT System 

The following is the treatment sequence for the RBT system. 

Once the BWT system is powered i.e. Pump is functioning, Ozone generator turned on and 

the ECA rectifier is operational and water flows through the Reactor: 

.1 water passing through the reactor is mixed with Ozone infused water; 

.2 water enters the electrode chamber and is treated with Electro Chemical electrodes 

for additional hydrogen and oxygen gas, plus NaOCl; 

.3 water enters the cavitation chamber, and subjected to the forces of cavitation over 

the cavitation inserts; and 

.4 the flow of water then enters into the second electrode chamber. 

Water then enters the second cavitation chamber. 

The water flow then passes through the pump, and is pumped through the Ballast Safe filter 

under pressure. 

The RBT test facility is configured with manual valves and switches that allow for the individual 

testing of each component. When the RBT system is installed into a vessel all components 

operate automatically, and are controlled by a programmable logistic computer (PLC), installed 

into the Electrical Control Panel (ECP). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 62 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Typical working principal and electrical control system on board vessels will be configured in the 

following manner: 

The RBT, ECP is connected directly to the ballast pump. The reactor is fitted into the ballast 

water pipeline and is equipped with a flow switch that detects when water starts to flow through 

the reactor. 

The Electro Chemically Activated Rectifier (ECA) and Ozone generators are turned on 

automatically. Certain control valves and or solenoid valves on the Ozone supply line are 

opened. This will allow water to flow through the venturi, causing a vacuum that draws the 

Ozone gas into the venture; the Ozone gas is infused into the water from the venturi at the contact 

chamber, this Ozone infused water is led into the first chamber of the RBT reactor. The Electro 

chemical activated rectifier supplies power to the electrodes and sodium hypochlorite is formed 

along with the liberation of small amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. The gas impregnated 

ballast water then passes through the cavitation chamber where it passes over several cavitation 

inserts. 

Two reactor housings form one RBT treatment system, the process is similar for the second 

RBT treatment reactor, with the exception that no additional Ozone gas is infused into the system 

at this point. When the ballast pump is turned off, the RBT reactor shuts down simultaneously. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 63 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

 Figure 18: Typical pipe and instrument diagram (P&ID) for the RBT system 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 64 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

4.1.2.3 Control system description 

The RBT test facility is fitted with a variety of controls and monitoring equipment to allow for 

testing of the RBT reactor under varying sea conditions. 

The following is a brief description of electrical control system. 

System voltage driven from Port Electricity supply utility, as per the Port specification for 

voltage and frequency fluctuation. 

Electrical connection: 3 Phase plus neutral and positive earth. 

System parameters: 400 volt alternating current nominal 50 Hz. Limit 400 amps. 

The control system is divided into two sections: 

Section 1: Main distribution board: 

Variable Speed Drive (VSD); 

Supply breaker to the VSD; 

Supply breaker to ECA rectifier; 

Supply breaker to Ozone generator 1 & 2; 

Supply breaker for instrument control panel; and 

Various circuit breakers for lighting and plug sockets. 

Section 2: Instrument and operator interface: 

Regulated 24 Volt DC power supply; and 

DataTaker data acquisition unit. 

4-20 milli amp signal isolators, various selector switches and stop start push buttons, 

VSD remote monitoring unit and potentiometer for pump speed control. 

90 KW and 45 KW pump motor, selectable speed control common to both. 

VSD rated 90 KW overload for 90 KW motor achieved with VSD. 45 KW motor protected by 

thermal overload trip unit mounted external to the VSD. 

4.1.2.4 Ozone gas infusion and Ozone production control 

Ozone gas that is generated within the Ozone cell at a pre-determined and preset amount 

according to the BWT system requirements. Ozone gas is drawn into the venturi from the Ozone 

cell. The venturi fitted to the system operates within certain vacuum parameters that can vary 

depending on the flow of water through the venturi. In the event that the flow is either increased 

or decreased, due to varying pumping conditions such as back pressure or a reduction thereof, the 

venturi suction ability is directly influenced. 

Should the water flow through the venturi increase so will the suction capacity of the venturi 

increase. This directly affects the flow of air through the Ozone cell, thereby increasing the 

amount of available oxygen that can be converted into Ozone gas. Should the flow of water 

through the venturi decrease, the amount of negative pressure created at the venturi will decrease 

proportionally, this reduced flow through the venturi will thus reduce the volume of air drawn 

into the Ozone cell. As such the Ozone production will decrease accordingly. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 65 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Figure 19: Ozone Cell 

The Ozone cell is sealed by means of silicon seals with a glass cover for visual inspection of the 

corona production, no air flow is possible without the required vacuum created by the 

installed venturi. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 66 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

NaOCl control 

The chlorine production via the Electro Chemically Activated rectifier (ECA) is controlled with 

the use of a Frequency Modulated Switch Mode Power Supply. 

Output current regulation 

Mechanism: 

Output current is selected via potentiometer trim pot. 

20 Amp-100 Amp current regulations is achieved via voltage reference from current selection 

potentiometer, summed with voltage feedback derived from current shunt on output. 

This positive or negative error signal is then fed to the voltage to frequency oscillator to adjust 

positively or negatively the frequency of the power switch thus maintaining current regulation for 

differing load conditions. 

5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (G9: 4.2.7) 

Material Safety Data Sheets for all Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals are provided in 

the B References (refer to full application dossier) 

6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 

6.1 Screening for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (G9: 5.1) 

6.1.1 Persistence (G9: 5.1.1.1) 

Data under this heading are included in Appendices as indicated below: 

Appendix 1: Ozone 

Appendix 2: Bromote 

Appendix 3: Bromoform 

Appendix 4: Free active chlorine, Chlorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite 

Appendix 5: Hydrogen gas 

Appendix 6: Dibromoacetic acid 

A summary of these data are provided in paragraph 6.1.4 below. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 67 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

6.1.2 Bioaccumulation (G9: 5.1.1.2) 

Data under this heading are included in Appendices as indicated below: 

Appendix 1: Ozone 

Appendix 2: Bromote 

Appendix 3: Bromoform 

Appendix 4: Free active chlorine, Chlorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite 

Appendix 5: Hydrogen gas 

Appendix 6: Dibromoacetic acid 

A summary of these data are provided in paragraph 6.1.4 below. 

6.1.3 Toxicity tests (G9: 5.1.2.3) 

6.1.3.1 Acute toxicity tests 

Independent whole effluent toxicity tests were conducted to assess acute toxicity of natural 

seawater treated with the RBT reactor to a range marine species. Tests were conducted 

by Anchor Environmental Consultants CC, South Africa. Full details on the methods used to 

conduct these tests and results obtained are provided in Appendix 7 and are summarized below. 

Six local marine and or estuarine species, a marine sea weed Gracilaria verrucosa, a crustacean 

Diogenes brevirostris, two species of gastropod mollusc Bullia digitalis and Haliotis midae and 

two species of fish Liza richardsonii and Psammogobius knysnaensis were exposed to 

five concentrations of treated ballast water (TBW) (100%, 50%, 2%, 12.5% and 6.25%) 

in 96-hour flow through tests. Five identical, replicate experimental tanks were stocked 

with 10 similar sized individuals of each species (n = 300 per trial) for each concentration and for 

a control of untreated sea water. TBW was diluted and pumped through the experimental tanks 

immediately post treatment with the RBT reactor. Water quality measurements (salinity, 

temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen) and chemical analyses of dissolved organic carbon, free 

chlorine and trihalomethanes were undertaken daily during experimental trials. 

Growth of G. verrucosa was inhibited in 100% TBW (IC50 = 59%). All of the invertebrates 

tested survived the 96-hour experiments and no obvious adverse effects were detected in any 

concentration of TBW. Both species of fish suffered 100% mortality in the 100% TBW 

concentration treatment and 50% TBW concentration also caused 100% mortality for 

P. knysnaensis (LC50 = 35% TBW) but had no effect on L. richardsonii (LC50 = 72% TBW). 

A follow-up static toxicity test using P. knysnaensis was conducted with TBW that was held 

in a simulated ballast tank for 24 to 48 hours. After both 24 hours and 48 hours, TBW had no 

observed effect on P. knysnaensis (n = 60) at 100% concentration during a five-day test. 

Chemical analysis confirmed that total chlorine levels dropped to about one third of 

immediately post-treatment levels within 24 hours and to below detection limits 

after 72 hours. Disinfection by-products created by the RBT reactor were limited to low 

concentrations of bromoform (0-9 μg/l), which was well below published values that are known to 

be toxic to marine organisms. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 68 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

6.1.3.2 Chronic toxicity 

Independent whole effluent chronic toxicity test were conducted on three trophic levels of marine 

organisms in order to assess the potential environmental toxicity of RBT treated ballast water 

(TBW) to marine life. Tests were conducted by Anchor Environmental Consultants CC, 

South Africa. Full details on the methods used to conduct these tests and results obtained are 

provided in Appendix 8 and are summarized below. 

Tests were conducted on one species of fish (Liza richardsonii), one invertebrate 

(Tripneustes gratilla) and one algae (Skeletonema costatum). A 28 day fish juvenile growth test 

(OECD 215) was employed to assess chronic toxicity to fish, a 72-hour algal growth inhibition 

test was used to determine toxic effects on algae (ISO 10253:2006 (E)), and the sea urchin 

fertilization test (1 hour 10 min) was used to assess toxicity to invertebrates 

(Standard Methods, 2005, EPA-821-R-02-014). 

The organisms were exposed to five concentrations of TBW (100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% 

and 6.25%) over varying periods of time, and sublethal endpoints were used to calculate 

no observed effects concentrations (NOEC), lowest observed effect concentrations (LOEC) and 

inhibition concentrations where applicable. Liza richardsonii did not show any significant 

reduction in growth at 100% TBW, and thus the NOEC was estimated to be 100% TBW. 

Similarly the algal growth inhibition test with Skeletonema costatum did not result in significant 

growth inhibition at 100% TBW, and NOEC was estimated at 100% TBW. The sea urchin 

fertilization test with Tripneustes gratilla was the most sensitive chronic test, with a NOEC 

of 50% TBW and a LOEC of 100% TBW. The IC25 and IC50 concentrations for the sea urchin 

fertilization test were calculated to be 57.73% and 72.35%, respectively. 

6.1.4 Does the Active Substance and/or preparation meet all three criteria for PBT? 

Full details on persistence, bioaccumulation potential and toxicity of each of 

the Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals are included in Appendices 1 to 6. A summary of 

these data is included in the table below. 

 Persistent 

(y/n) 

Bioaccumulative 

(y/n) 

Toxic 

(y/n) 

Reference/Comments/ 

Justification for missing 

data 

Ozone No No Yes Appendix 1 

Bromate No No Yes Appendix 2 

Bromoform Yes No Yes Appendix 3 

Free active chlorine No No Yes Appendix 4 

Hydrogen No No No Appendix 5 

Dibromoacetic acid No No Yes Appendix 6 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 69 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

6.2 Evaluation of the treated ballast water (G9: 5.2) 

6.2.1 Basic Approval 

Results of chemical characterization of natural seawater, brackish water and freshwater 

undertaken for Basic and Final Approval are provided in paragraph 3.1 above. 

6.2.2 Final Approval 

Results of chemical characterization of natural seawater, brackish water and freshwater 

undertaken for Basic and Final Approval are provided in paragraph 3.1 above. 

6.2.3 Determination of holding time 

Decay experiments were conducted in order to determine the minimum holding time necessary to 

reduce TRO concentrations to below 0.1 μg/l. It was found that TRO concentrations were below 

this concentration three hours after treatment. 

6.3 Risk characterization and analysis 

6.3.1 Reaction with organic matter (see G9: 4.2.1.3; this report 2.4.4) 

Effects of varying concentration of dissolved and particulate organic matter on Active Substances 

and Relevant Chemicals are discussed in paragraph 3.1 above. 

6.3.2 Characterization of degradation route and rate (G9: 5.3.5) 

An assessment of the rates of breakdown and formation of Active Substances 

and Relevant Chemicals in the natural seawater, freshwater and brackish water treated with 

the RBT reactor are provided in paragraph 3.1 above. 

6.3.3 Prediction of discharge and environmental concentrations 

The predicted environmental concentration (PEC) of bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TROs 

were estimated using the MAM-PEC V2.0 model for a worst case scenario “commercial 

harbour”. 

The MAM-PEC model was developed for the leaching of anti-fouling paints from ships and it 

calculates the steady state concentration of pollutants assuming a permanent source is present. 

MAM-PEC V2.0 is freely available and can be downloaded. The model was developed by delft 

hydraulics (DELTARES) and the Free University, Amsterdam. 

It was decided to determine the PECs for these compounds as they were the major 

Active Substance and disinfection by-products in water treated with the RBT reactor. The DBPs 

were also found to be relatively stable and persistent with little or no reduction in concentrations 

over a 24-hour period. The MAM-PEC “commercial harbour” scenario is based on the Rotterdam 

harbour in the Netherlands, which situated along a large estuarine river 2 km from the mouth 

(OECD, 2005). The harbour may have additional flushing from a small river or urban drainage 

system discharging at the rear of the harbour (OECD, 2005). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 70 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

In order to estimate the predicted environmental concentrations of Active Substances and 

disinfection by-products entering the port of Rotterdam, it is necessary to know the amount of 

ballast water discharged daily into the Port. An inventory conducted by the Port of Rotterdam 

in February 2008 revealed that ballast water intake for 2008 amounted to 6.13 million m3 and 

total ballast water discharge to 2.76 million m3 (Port of Rotterdam, 2008). This indicates that the 

port of Rotterdam is mainly a ballast water exporting port. The results of discharge from the 

report are also considered to be worst case scenario due to the fact that a number of vessels will 

take in and/or discharge ballast water during their voyage, while the inventory assumed that all 

ballast water was taken in/discharged directly into the harbour (Port of Rotterdam, 2008). 

In order to calculate a daily discharge of ballast water the monthly discharge quantity was 

divided by 29, giving an estimated daily release of 95, 172.4 m3/day. 

6.3.3.1 Bromoform 

It was decided to model the PEC of bromoform released from treated ballast water using the 

maximum concentration of bromoform in seawater treated with the RBT reactor, as well as the 

average concentration. This corresponded to 12 μg/l, and 3.17 μg/l, respectively (Table 17 

above). Bromate was assumed to be persistent with no abiotic, biological or photolytic 

degradation. Given the discharge of 95,172.4 m3

 ballast water per day, this would result in worst 

case scenario daily release of 1142.06 g bromoform per day (maximum) and an average daily 

release of 773.75 g. The predicted environmental concentrations of bromoform in a standard 

OECD “commercial harbour” are summarized below (Table 18), and reveal a maximum PEC 

of 0.0588 μg/l in the harbour and 0.076 μg/l in the surrounding waters for worst case scenario of 

maximum bromoform concentration. For average bromoform concentration in RBT treated 

ballast water of 8.13 μg/l the average daily release into the harbour and surrounding waters 

would be 0.0478 μg/l and 0.003 μg/l, respectively. 

Table 18: PEC of bromoform in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined 

using MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum bromoform concentration of 12 μg/l and 

a daily emission rate of 1142.06 g/day 

 Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters 

Maximum concentration μg/l 0.0706 0.00400 

95% concentration μg/l 0.0686 0.00344 

Average concentration μg/l 0.0257 0.000724 

Median concentration μg/l 0.00842 0.00140 

Minimum Concentration μg/l 0.00125 0.000707 

Table 19: PEC of bromoform in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined 

using MAM-PEC V2.0 with an average bromoform concentration of 8.13 μg/l 

and a daily emission rate of 773.75 g/day 

 Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters 

Maximum concentration μg/l 0.0478 0.003 

95% concentration μg/l 0.0465 0.00233 

Average concentration μg/l 0.0174 0.00049 

Median concentration μg/l 0.0057 0.00095 

Minimum Concentration μg/l 0.00085 0.000479 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 71 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

As can be seen from the above tables the maximum concentrations of bromoform in an OECD 

“commercial harbour” are well below the WHO recommended drinking water standard 

of 100 μg/l for both maximum and average bromoform concentrations in seawater treated with 

the RBT reactor. It is concluded that bromoform in the tanks or the environment do not pose a 

risk to human health. 

6.3.3.2 Dibromoacetic acid (DBAA) 

It was decided to model the PEC of DBAA released from treated ballast water using the 

maximum concentration of DBAA in water treated with the RBT reactor, as well as the average 

concentration. This corresponded to 13.1 μg/l, and 3.17 μg/l, respectively (Table 2 above). 

DBAA was assumed to be persistent with no abiotic, biological or photolytic degradation. Given 

the discharge of 95,172 m3

 ballast water per day, containing 13.1 μg/l bromoform, this would 

result in worst case scenario daily release of 1246.75 g DBAA per day, and an average daily 

release of 301.69 g/day. 

The predicted environmental concentrations of DBAA in a standard OECD “commercial 

harbour” are summarized below (Table 20), and reveal a maximum PEC of 0.111 μg/l in the 

harbour and 0.0268 μg/l in the surrounding waters. 

Table 20: PEC of DBAA in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined using 

MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum DBAA concentration of 13.1 μg/l and a daily 

emission rate of 610.01 g/day 

 Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters 

Maximum concentration μg/l 0.111 0.005 

95% concentration μg/l 0.109 0.00446 

Average concentration μg/l 0.0387 0.000894 

Median concentration μg/l 0.0103 0.00177 

Minimum Concentration μg/l 0.00104 0.000872 

Table 21: PEC of DBAA in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined using 

MAM-PEC V2.0 with an average DBAA concentration of 3.17 μg/l and a daily 

emission rate of 301.09 g/day 

 Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters 

Maximum concentration μg/l 0.0268 0.001 

95% concentration μg/l 0.0263 0.00108 

Average concentration μg/l 0.00937 0.000216 

Median concentration μg/l 0.00248 0.000427 

Minimum Concentration μg/l 0.000339 0.000211 

As can be seen from the above tables (Tables 20 and 21) the maximum concentrations of 

dibromoacetic acid in an OECD “commercial harbour” are well below the WHO recommended 

drinking water standard of 100 μg/l for both maximum and average DBAA concentrations in 

seawater treated with the RBT reactor. It is concluded that bromoform in the tanks or the 

environment do not pose a risk to human health. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 72 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

6.3.3.3 Total Residual Oxidants 

It was decided to model the PEC of TRO released from treated ballast water using the maximum 

concentration of TRO in water treated with the RBT reactor, this corresponded to 0.8 mg/l 

(Table 17 above). PECs were modelled using the decay rate obtained from decay experiment in 

this study. Given the discharge of 95,172 m3

 ballast water per day, containing 0.8 μg/l 

bromoform, this would result in worst case scenario daily release of 761 37.92 g TRO per day. 

The predicted environmental concentrations of TRO in a standard OECD “commercial harbour” 

are summarized below (Table 22), and reveal a maximum PEC of 0.135 μg/l in the harbour 

and 0.011 μg/l in the surrounding waters. 

Table 22: PEC of TRO in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined using 

MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum TRO concentration of 0.8 mg/l and a daily 

emission rate of 761 37.92 g/day 

 Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters 

Maximum concentration μg/l 0.135 0.011 

95% concentration μg/l 0.133 0.0107 

Average concentration μg/l 0.056 0.00221 

Median concentration μg/l 0.0412 0.00457 

Minimum Concentration μg/l 0.00889 0.00191 

The worst case predicted environmental concentration of TROs is thus well below 

the WHO drinking water guideline for chlorine (5 mg/l), and thus TRO concentrations pose no 

risk to human health. 

6.3.4 Assessment of potential for bioaccumulation 

A review of the available literature suggests that none of the Active Substances or Relevant 

Chemicals generated by the RBT reactor through the treatment of natural seawater, brackish 

water or freshwater shows potential for bioaccumulation. Thus, the risk of this is judged to be 

negligible. 

6.3.5 Effects assessment 

Please refer to sections 7.2 and 7.3. 

6.3.6 Effects on aquatic organisms 

Please refer to section 7.3 

6.3.7 Effects on sediment 

The low Koc value of dibromoacetic acid (1.901 l/kg) indicates that the adsorption potential is 

relatively low (<500 l/kg), and thus it will have low sediment toxicity. The Koc of bromoform 

is 218.81 (<500 l/kg) and thus adsorption to sediment is of little concern. Since Koc of both major 

DPBs was <500 l/kg it was not necessary to consider the effects on sediments (MEPC 55/2/16). 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 73 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

6.3.8 Comparison of effect assessment with discharge toxicity 

Please refer to section 7.3. 

7 RISK ASSESSMENT 

7.1 Risk to safety of ship 

Assessments of the effects of seawater and freshwater treated using the RBT reactor on the 

corrosion of ballast tank steel and ballast tank coatings at a desk-top (literature review) and 

through accelerated corrosion tests have been undertaken by Chemical Investigation Services and 

the Centre for Materials Engineering, University of Cape Town, respectively. Reports prepared 

from these studies are included in Appendix 10 of this report and results are summarized below. 

7.1.1 Desktop corrosion risk assessment (Appendix 10-1) 

The desktop assessment (literature review) found that there is a very limited amount of work 

available in the published literature concerning the impact of various Active Substances on the 

corrosion of steel in ship ballast tanks. Virtually nothing is found concerning the impact of 

Active Substances on the degradation of coatings as applied to ship ballast tank steel. There is 

however, sufficient material to indicate that sodium hypochlorite in ballast water at applied 

concentrations of 1.5 ppm does not increase the rate of corrosion of mild steel in ballast tanks. 

Furthermore at 1.5 ppm sodium hypochlorite does not damage coatings and can thus be used at 

this level to treat ballast water. 

With regard to Ozone, the picture is far less clear and no published work could be found 

concerning the measured impact of Ozone in ballast water on the corrosion of mild steel, nor its 

impact on marine coatings. The published findings of specialist researchers in cooling water 

system corrosion seem to indicate that Ozone does not increase the rate of corrosion of mild 

steel. 

Finally it may be noted that the Electro-CleenTM BWTS has been approved by the IMO as 

per MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7, on 10 October 2008. This ballast water treatment system uses a Total 

Residual Oxidant (TRO) level of 10 mg/l. Electro-CleenTM listed its Active Substance as HOCl, 

HOBr, O3, H2O2 and OH-. Final Approval by the IMO implies that for this Ballast Water 

Treatment System, test work would have shown that there is no increase in the rate of corrosion 

of ballast tank steel nor any negative impact on the coatings that are applied to ballast tank steels. 

7.1.2 Accelerated corrosion tests (Appendix 10-2) 

The corrosion rate of ABS-DH36 steel was determined in normal seawater, treated seawater, low 

salinity seawater and treated low salinity seawater. The water treatment in each case was 

performed by Resource Ballast Technologies (Pty) Ltd. and involved processes of ozonation and 

chlorination. The corrosion rates were measured using accelerated corrosion techniques and 

involved potentiodynamic scanning and polarization resistance measurement. 

The corrosion rates for the steel in all water conditions agree with values reported in the open 

literature for the corrosion rate of mild steel in seawater. Comparisons between tests conducted 

in the present study indicated that the corrosion rate for steel in the treated normal seawater is 

approximately double that for the equivalent untreated condition, but are within the limits of 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 74 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

normal corrosion rates reported in the open literature for mild steel in sea water. The corrosion 

rates for the untreated and treated low salinity water are equivalent and match the corrosion rate 

for the treated normal seawater. Higher corrosion rates observed with the treated seawater are 

believed to be a function of higher oxygen levels in the treated seawater resulting from cavitation 

during treatment. 

7.1.3 Ongoing corrosion testing 

A long-term corrosion test, to further substantiate these results and as required 

for Guidelines (G8) Type approval, will run in parallel with the type approval testing and form 

part of Guidelines (G8) application to the Administration. 

7.2 Risks to human health 

Risks to human health arise from two sources: 

.1 human contact with water treated with the RBT reactor (e.g., in a port 

environment or on board a vessel); and 

.2 exposure to gases vented from ballast tanks containing treated ballast water or 

gases released from the reactor itself or from pipe work on the vessel. 

Risks arising from these two exposure routes are assessed individually below. 

7.2.1 Contact with treated ballast water 

As can be seen from the table below (Table 23), the predicted environmental concentrations 

(calculated using MAM-PEC, section 6.3.3) of bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TROs, as 

well as the maximum concentrations in 100% treated ballast water, fall well below the WHO 

guidelines for drinking water and bathing water. Note: The WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water 

Quality (WHO,2006) can be used as a basis for screening the potential risk from specific organic 

chemicals in bathing waters (WHO, 2003)a

. Bromate, a disinfection by-product of concern to 

human health was below detection limits in 100% treated water and thus does not pose any risk. 

It is thus safe to bathe in “commercial harbour” water into which water treated with 

the RBT reactor is being discharged. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 75 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Table 23: Standard international guidelines for disinfection by-products (DBPs) and TROs 

in drinking water and predicted environmental concentrations of these chemicals 

resulting from RBT ballast treatment (PEC obtained from MAM-PEC V2.0) 

 Standard 

guidelines 

Standard guidelines for 

bathing water 

Max conc in 

100% TBW 

PECmax

a

Bromoform 100 μg/l 100 μg/l 12.0 μg/l 0.0588 

μg/l a

Dibromoacetic 

acid 

100 μg/l 100 μg/l 13.1 μg/l 0.111 

μg/l 

b

TRO 

(chlorine) 

5 mg/l 5 mg/l 0.8 mg/l 0.135 

μg/l a

Bromate 10 μg/l 10 μg/l <5 (freshwater) 

<10 seawater 

- 

a

WHO (2006), WHO (2003)b

7.2.2 Exposure to gases released from the reactor or from treated ballast water 

Potential risks associated with human exposure to hydrogen and chlorine gas produced by 

the RBT reactor were assessed by estimating the rate of production for hydrogen gas through 

desk-top methods and by monitoring gas concentrations in the header space of a 200 m3

simulation ballast tank. 

7.2.2.1 Desk-top assessment of hydrogen and chlorine gas production 

Hydrogen and chlorine gas are produced through a process of electrolysis of aqueous NaCl 

(equation 1 below) on the electrodes within the RBT reactor. 

NaCl (s) + H2O (l) → Na+ (aq) + Cl- (aq) 

The Na+ ions migrate toward the negative electrode and the Cl- ions migrate toward the positive 

electrode. There are two substances that can be reduced at the cathode: Na+ ions and water 

molecules. 

Cathode (-): 

 Na+

 + e-→Na E ̊red = -2.71 V 

 2 H2O + 2 e-→H2 + 2 OH- E ̊red = -0.83 V 

Because it is much easier to reduce water than Na+ ions, the only product formed at the cathode 

is hydrogen gas. 

Cathode (-): 2 H2O(l) + 2 e-

→H2(g) + 2 OH-(aq) 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 76 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

There are also two substances that can be oxidized at the anode: Cl-

 ions and water molecules. 

Anode (+): 

 2 Cl-

→Cl2 + 2 e- E ̊ox = -1.36 V 

 2 H2O→O2 + 4 H+ + 4 e- E ̊ox ox = -1.23 V 

The standard-state potentials for these half-reactions are so close to each other that we might 

expect to see a mixture of Cl2 and O2 gas collect at the anode. In practice, the only product of 

this reaction is Cl2. 

Anode (+): 2 Cl-

→Cl2 + 2 eIn summary, electrolysis of aqueous NaCl solutions gives a mixture of hydrogen and chlorine gas 

and an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution. 

2 NaCl(aq) + 2 H2O(l) →2 Na+(aq) + 2 OH-(aq) + H2(g) + Cl2(g) 

Using the equations and the knowledge that 1 Faraday (26.8 amp hrs) = 1 coulomb 

(96489 amp seconds) = 35.34 g chorine gas + 2 g hydrogen gas, that the surface area of the anode 

within the RBT reactor is 0.02 m2

 (2 surfaces each 100 mm by 100 mm), and that the anode 

current density = 550 A/m2, we can then calculate the chlorine and hydrogen gas production. 

Given that the current the cell is a maximum of 10 Amps and that 1.32275 grams of chlorine is 

produced per Amp hour (Faraday’s Law), then assuming 100% current efficiency in saturated 

brine, the above anode configuration will produce: 13.2275 g Chlorine per hour. 

However, no cell operates at 100% efficiency, so in sea water the conversion efficiency (CE) will 

be between 93% to 95%. Thus using a CE of 95%, the Cl2 output is 13.2275 x 96% = 8.598 g 

Cl2 per hour. Using the same equations, the rate of hydrogen gas production is estimated to 

be 0.49 g H2 per hour. 

With a flow in the cell of 200 m3/hour, this results in a Cl2 gas concentration of less 

then 0.05 ppm and H2 gas concentration of 0.002 ppm. These concentrations are far below what 

can be considered dangerous concentrations. 

7.2.2.2 Measurement of hydrogen and chlorine gas production 

Pinnacle Instruments PTY LTD, were contracted by RBT to perform independent hydrogen and 

chlorine gas measurements, to determine the volumes of these two gases that are liberated from 

the electro chemical process within the RBT reactor. 

These tests were run concurrently with the fish chronic toxicity tests described in Appendix 8 of 

this application dossier, covering the latter 8 days of this experiment, continuing for a further 

two days after the 28-day fish experiment terminated. Gas detectors were installed in the header 

space of simulation ballast tanks and maintained in position for a period of 10 days where they 

were allowed to measure concentrations of hydrogen and chlorine gas in the header space 

continuously over this period. Details on the gas detection equipment used including calibration 

certificates are presented in Appendix 11. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 77 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

Ballast water in the simulation ballast tanks was renewed on a daily basis for the first 8 days and 

then twice per day for the last 2 days. Risks due to high winds prevented the tanks from being 

emptied completely each day. Thus, the approach taken was to drain the tanks to approximately 

one third of their volume (67 m3), refill them to their full capacity (200 m3) with natural seawater 

treated with the RBT reactor, immediately drain the tanks to one third of their volume, and then 

refill them to maximum capacity with freshly treated natural seawater. The process of draining 

and refilling the ballast tanks required approximately 2 to 3 hours to complete. Assuming 100% 

mixing efficiency in the tanks (which is not unreasonable) the volume of water in the simulation 

ballast tanks comprised 88.9% newly treated ballast water. 

Average, maximum and minimum concentrations of Cl2 gas were 0.24 ppm, 0.25 ppm 

and 0.07 ppm over this 10 day period. Average maximum and minimum hydrogen gas 

concentrations were 0.15%, 0.28% and 0.0% over the 10-day testing period (Appendix 11). 

7.2.2.3 Summary of risks due to chlorine and hydrogen gas 

From the foregoing, it is clear that risks of chlorine or hydrogen gases building up to levels that 

are considered dangerous (i.e. explosive) or could pose a risk to human health are negligible. 

7.3 Risks to the aquatic environment 

7.3.1 Whole effluent ballast discharge, bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TRO 

Six acute toxicity tests and three chronic toxicity tests on a total of eight local marine and or 

estuarine species were conducted using seawater treated with the RBT reactor. Toxicity tests 

were conducted on one seaweed species, one unicellular algae species, a crustacean, two 

gastropod species and two fish species. From the acute toxicity tests the most sensitive species 

was found to be the fish P.knysnaensis (LC50 = 35% TBW, NOEC = 25% TBW), and the most 

sensitive species from the chronic toxicity tests was the sea urchin T.gratilla. 

The predicted no effects concentration (PNEC) for bromoform and dibromoacetic acid were 

determined using data from the chronic sea urchin fertilization test. Since TRO concentrations 

were below the detection limits for the sea urchin test, the PNEC for TRO was estimated using 

the results from the P.knysnaensis acute test. Bromoform and dibromoacetic acid were the only 

disinfection by-products present in the treated ballast water used for the sea urchin toxicity test, 

with concentrations of 2.7 μg/l (bromoform) and 1.4 μg/l (dibromoacetic acid) in the NOEC 

of 50% treated ballast water (TBW). The maximum concentration of TRO in 25% TBW from the 

most sensitive acute tests was 0.12 mg/l. 

The sea urchin fertilization test is known to be a very sensitive short-term chronic test. It is important to 

note that in this case the sea urchin fertilization test was exceptionally sensitive, resulting in NOEC 

concentrations for bromoform and dibromoacetic acid that are well below those reported by the 

literature: Japan Basic Approval NOECbromoform = 2.9 mg/l, PNECbromoform = 0.29 mg/l, 

PNECdibromoacetic acid = 6.9 μg/l (MEPC, 2006). (Note, though, that chronic toxicity text results 

reported in document MEPC 55/2 “Application for Basic Approval for the Special Pipe Ballast 

Water Management System submitted by Japan” indicate no obvious toxicity was noted for 

three groups of organisms at levels above 160 μg/L bromoform). The predicted no effects 

concentration (PNEC) for bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TRO was thus calculated using 

NOEC from relevant chronic and acute tests using an application factor (AF) of 10. It should 

also be noted that no toxic effects were observed in 100% TBW in the chronic algae and fish 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 78 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

tests, further highlighting the sensitivity of the sea urchin fertilization test. The PNECs were thus 

calculated as follows: 

Thus, 

PNECTBW = 50%/10 = 5.0% 

PNECbromoform = 2.7μg/l /10 = 0.27 μg/l 

PNECdibromoacetic acid = 1.7 μg/l /10 = 0.17 μg/l 

PNECTRO = 0.12 mg/l/10 = 0.012 mg/l 

The PEC/PNEC ratios for harbour water and surrounding water for bromoform, dibromoacetic 

acid and TRO are presented below. 

Table 24: PECs and PEC/PNEC ratios for bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TROs 

produced by the treatment of ballast water using the RBT reactor 

Bromoform 

 Ballast discharge of Maximum 

bromoform concentration 

(12.0 μg/l) 

Ballast discharge of average 

bromoform concentration 

(8.13 μg/l) 

 Harbour Surrounding Harbour Surrounding 

PEC (μg/l) 0.0706 0.004 0.0478 0.003 

PEC/PNEC 0.261 0.015 0.177 0.011 

Dibromoacetic acid 

 Ballast discharge of Maximum 

DBAA concentration (13.1 μg/l) 

Ballast discharge of average 

DBAA concentration (3.17 μg/l) 

 Harbour Surrounding Harbour Surrounding 

PEC (μg/l) 0.111 0.0543 0.0027 0.001 

PEC/PNEC 0.65 0.31 0.0158 0.005 

TRO 

 Ballast discharge of Maximum 

TRO concentration (0.8 mg/l) 

 Harbour Surrounding 

PEC (μg/l) 0.135 0.011 

PEC/PNEC 0.01124 0.0009 

As can be seen from the above table (Table 24), the PEC/PNEC ratio is less than 1 for all 

chemicals of concern, indicating that there is no risk to the aquatic environment in a worst case 

“commercial harbour” scenario. Since PNEC were calculated from acute data instead of chronic 

data it was decided to also determine PEC/PNEC ratios if assessment factors of 100 

and 1000 were applied. The PNEC for TRO applying an AF of 100 is 1.2 μg/l which results in 

a PEC/PNEC ratio of 0.1125. Applying an assessment factor of 1000 results in a PNEC 

of 0.12 μg/l, which gives a PEC/PNEC ratio of 1.125. The most conservative estimate for PNEC 

of TRO in ballast water thus results in a PEC/PNEC value slightly above 1. 

A simplified model was constructed in order to assess the remaining ecotoxicity within a worst 

case commercial harbour scenario. In order to achieve a PNEC for treated ballast water of 5.0%, 

this would require a dilution factor of 20 in the harbour environment. (A PNEC of 0.5% would 

require a dilution factor of 200). Using the assumptions outlined in the Final Approval document 

submitted by Norway (MEPC 58/2/1)) in terms of the volume and flushing rate of the Rotterdam 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 79 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

harbour (Table 25), and the volume of ballast water discharged per day into Rotterdam Harbour 

(95, 172.4 m3

, Port of Rotterdam (2008)), and assuming uniform mixing and steady state release, it 

was estimated that the ballast water discharged into the harbour will reach an equilibrium 

concentration of 0.00044% treated ballast water (defined as percentage whole effluent released after 

RBT treatment process). The concentration of treated ballast water in a “commercial harbour” over 

time in shown in Figure 20. The PEC/PNEC ratio is thus equal to 0.000088 

(if AF = 10) and 0.00088 (if AF = 100). This is lower than the threshold value of 1, which 

suggests that treatment or dilution of ballast water before discharge would not be necessary. 

Discharge of ballast water directly into the harbour thus poses no risk to the aquatic environment. 

It must however be noted that the sea urchin toxicity test was conducted using ballast water that 

was at least 21⁄2 hours old, in which TRO concentrations were undetectable. In order to make the 

assumptions that ballast water is not toxic to the immediate receiving environment it is suggested 

that the treated ballast water is held for a minimum of 21⁄2 hours before release. 

Table 25: OECD default “commercial harbour” scenario based on Rotterdam harbour 

Harbour Length 

(m) 

Width 

(m) 

Depth 

(m) 

Volume 

(m3) 

Flush 

rate 

OECD “Commercial Harbour” 

(Rotterdam) 

10000 2000 20 400 x 106 0.65 

0

0.0001

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

0.0006

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (days)

Concentration treated ballast water 

in harbour environment (%)

Figure 20: Concentration of treated ballast water in OECD “commercial harbour” 

 environment, assuming steady state ballast discharge of 95172 m3

/day, 

 harbour volume of 400 x 106 m3 and flush rate of 0.65 

PEC/PNEC ratios were also determined for individual chemicals of importance found in water 

treated with the RBT reactor. PEC/PNEC values were thus calculated for bromoform, 

dibromoacetic acid and TRO using the most sensitive species from toxicity tests. It is important 

to note that PECs for bromoform and dibromoacetic acid assume no degradation, and thus are 

conservative estimates. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 80 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

7.3.2 Conclusion 

A simplified risk assessment for the discharge of ballast water directly into a “commercial 

harbour” suggests that water treated with the RBT reactor poses no risk to the aquatic 

environment or to human health. Predicted environmental concentrations of Active Substances 

and Relevant Chemicals are well below recommended WHO guidelines for drinking and bathing 

water, and are well below predicted no effect concentrations for the most sensitive aquatic 

organism. It must however be noted that PEC/PNEC ratios were calculated using the results from 

the sea urchin toxicity test in which ballast water that was at least 21⁄2 hours old, and 

TRO concentrations were undetectable. In order to make the assumptions that ballast water is not 

toxic to the immediate receiving environment it is suggested that the treated ballast water is held 

for a minimum of 21⁄2 hours before release. This is also the amount of time required for almost 

complete decay of total residual oxidants (TRO<0.1 μg/l), and thus holding ballast water for this 

period would provide a further safe guard against exposure of organisms to oxidants. 

8 LITERATURE CITED IN THIS APPLICATION 

1 a) Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2006. Harmful Aquatic Organisms 

in Ballast Water: Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Special Pipe 

Ballast Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted 

by Japan. 55th session, agenda item 2, 12 April 2006. 

b) Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2006. Harmful Aquatic Organisms in 

Ballast Water: Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast 

Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by 

Japan. 55th session, agenda item 2, 12 April 2006. 

2 Von Gunten, U. and Oliveras, Y. 1998. Advanced oxidation of bromide-containing 

waters: Bromate Formation mechanisms. Environmental Science and Technology 32, 63-70. 

3 Von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking water: Part I. Oxidation kinetics and product 

formation. Water Research. 37, 1443-1467. 

4 Von Gunten, U. 2003. Ozonation of drinking water: Part II. Disinfection and by-product 

formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chloride. Water Research. 37, 1469-1487. 

5 Paller, M.H. and Heidinger, R.C. 1980. Mechanisms of delayed Ozone toxicity to bluegill 

Lepomis machrochirus Rafinesque. Environmental Pollution. 22: 229-239. 

6 Hall, L.W., Burton, D.T. and Richardson, L.B. 1981. Comparison of Ozone and chlorine 

toxicity to the developmental stages of striped bass, Morone saxatilis. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 38: 752-757. 

7 Asbury, C. and Coler, R. 1980. Toxicity of dissolved Ozone to fish and larvae. 

8 Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 52(7), 1990-1996. 

9 Harrington, D.K., Van Benschoten, J.E., Jensen, J.N., Lewis, D.P. and Neuhauser, 

E.F.1997. Combined use of heat and oxidants for controlling adult zebra mussels. 

Water Research. 31(11), 2783-2791. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 81 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

10 Leynen, M., Duvivier, L., Girboux, P. and Ollevier, F. 1998. Toxicity of Ozone to fish 

larvae and Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 41, 176-179.

11 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2007. Cheminfo: Chemical Profiles 

created by CCOHS. Ozone. www.worksafesask.ca/files/ccohs/cheminfo/cie774.html 

12 Bignami, G., Musi, B., Laviola, G. and Alleva, E. 1994. Limited effects of Ozone 

exposure during pregnancy on physical and neurobehavioral development of CD-1 mice. 

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 129 (2). 264-271. 

13 Dell’Omo, G.; Flore, M.; Petruzzi, S. and Alleva, E. 1995. Neurobehavioral development 

of CD-1 mice after combined gestational and postnatal exposure to Ozone. Archives of 

Toxicology. 69 (9), 608-616. 

14 Boorman, G.A. 1994. NTP Technical Report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies 

of Ozone (Cas no. 10028-15-6) and Ozone/NNk (Cas no. 10028-15-6/64091-91-4) in F344/N rats 

and B63F1 mice: inhalation studies. Technical report series no.440. National Toxicology 

Program, United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

15 Victorin, K. 1992. Review of the genotoxicity of Ozone. Mutation Research. 277 (3). 

221-238. 

16 Haag, W.R. and Hoigne, J. 1983. Ozonation of water containing chlorine or chloramines: 

Reaction products and kinetics. Water Research. 17 (10): 1397-1402. 

17 Crecelius, E.A. 1979. Measurements of oxidants in ozonized seawater and some 

biological reactions. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 36: 1006-1008. 

18 Stewart, M.E., Blogoslawski, W.J., Hsu, R.Y. and Helz, G.R.1979. By-products of 

oxidative biocides: Toxicity to oyster larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10 (6): 166-169. 

19 Hutchinson, T.H., Hutchings, M.J. and Moore, K.W. 1997. A review of bromate on 

aquatic organisms and toxicity of bromate to oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryos. Ecotoxicology 

and Environmental Safety. 38: 238-243. 

20 Sinochem chemical data sheet for Potassium bromate. 

www.tradezone.com/tradesites/kbr03.html 

21 US EPA, 2007. Bromate (CASRN 15541-45-4). Summary Information on the Integrated 

Risk Information System. www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1002.htm 

22 US EPA. 2001. Toxicological Review of Bromate (CAS No. 15541-45-4). In support of 

summary information on the Integrated Risk Management System for Bromate. 

Report No. EPA/635/R-01/002. 

23 Perrins, J.C., Cooper, W.J.,van Leeuwen, J. and Herwig, R.P. 2006. Ozonation of 

seawater from different locations: Formation and decay of total residual oxidant – implications 

for ballast water treatment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52:1023-1033. 

24 WHO, 2005. Bromate in drinking-water: Background document for the development of 

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Report no. WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/78. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 82 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

25 Heitmuller, P.T., Holister, T.A. and Parrish, P.R. 1981. Acute toxicity of 54 industrial 

chemicals to Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegates). Bulletin of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology. 27: 596-604. 

26 Buccafusco, R.J., Ellis, S.J. and Le Blanc, G.A. 1981. Acute toxicity of priority pollutants 

to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

26: 446-452. 

27 Gibson, C.I., Tone, F.C., Wilkinson, P., Blaylock, J.W. and Schirmer, R.E. 1981. 

Toxicity, Bioaccumulation and Depuration of Bromoform in Five Marine Species. Pacific 

Northwest Lab., Richland, WA:40 p.(U.S.NTIS NUREG/CR-1297) in Kegley, S., Hill, 

B. and Orme, S. PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, North America 

(San Francisco, CA. 2007). http:www.pesticideinfo.org. © 2000-2007 Pesticide Action Network, 

North America. All rights reserved. 

28 Erickson, S.J. and Hawkins, C.E. 1980. Effects of halogenated compounds on 

photosynthesis in estuarine phytoplankton. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology. 24: 910-915. 

29 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2005. Toxicological Profile for 

Bromoform and Dibromochloromethane. United States Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

30 Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. and Zabel, T. 1999. Guidelines for managing water 

quality impacts within United Kingdom European marine sites. WRC Swindon, Wiltshire. 

31 Melnick, R.L. 1989. NTP Technical Report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis -studies 

of tribromethane (bromoform) (CAS No. 75-25-2) in F344/N rats and B63F1 mice (gavage 

studies). NTP Technical Report 350. National Toxicology Program , NC. 

32 Faust, R.A. 1995. Toxicity Summary for Bromoform. Prepared for Oak Ridge 

Reservation Environmental Restoration Program. 

33 US EPA, 2000. Hazard summary created in April 1992; revised in January 2000. US EPA 

Technology Transfer Air Toxics Web site. www.eps/gov/ttn/atw//hlthef/bromofor.html 

34 Stocker, K.J., Statham, J., Howard, W.R. and Proudlock, R.J. 1997. Assessment of the 

potential in vivo genotoxicity of three trihalomethanes: chlorodibromethane, 

bromodichloromethane and bromoform. Mutagenesis. 12(3):169-173. 

35 Rice, R. G., and Wilkes, J. F. (1992). Fundamental aspects of Ozone chemistry in 

recirculating cooling water systems: data evaluation needs. Ozone Science and Engineering. 

14: 329-365. 

36 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 1994. Chemical Summary for chlorine. EPA 749-F-94-010a. 

37 Dandy, J.W.T. 1972. Activity response to chlorine in the brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis

(Mitchill). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 50: 405-410. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 83 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

38 Bills, T.D., Marking, L.L. and Howe, G.E. 1993, Sensitivity of juvenile Striped Bass to 

Chemicals used in Aquaculture. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Resource Publication 192. Washington D.C. 

39 Chien, Y. and Chou, Y. 1989. The effects of residual chlorine, temperatures and salinities 

on the development of Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Asian Fisheries Science 3: 69-84. 

40 Bellanca, M.A. and Bailey, D.S. 1977. Effects of chlorinated effluents on aquatic 

ecosystem in the lower James River. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 

49: 639-64 

41 Kaniewska-Prus, M. 1982. The effect of ammonia, chlorine and chloramines toxicity on 

the mortality of Daphnia magna Strauss. Polish Archive of Hydrobiology. 29(3-4): 607-624. 

42 Manning, T.M., Wilson, S.P. and Chapman, J.C. 1996. Toxicity of chlorine and other 

chlorinated compounds to some Australian aquatic organisms. Bulletin of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology. 56:971-976. 

43 Toetz, D., Varga, L. abd Pierce, M. 1977. Effect of chlorine and chloramines on uptake of 

inorganic nitrogen by phytoplankton. Water Research. 11: 253-258. 

44 Thatcher, T.O. 1978. The relative sensitivity of Pacific Northwest fishes and invertebrates 

to chlorinated sea water. In Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact and Health Effects, 

Volume 2: Proceedings of the second conference on the Environmental Impact of water 

chlorination, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 31-November 4, 1977. 341-350. 

45 Office of pesticide programs, 2000. Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C. in Kegley, S., Hill, B. and Orme, S. PAN Pesticide 

Database, Pesticide Action Network, North America (San Francisco, CA. 2007). 

http:www.pesticideinfo.org. © 2000-2007 Pesticide Action Network, North America. All rights 

reserved. 

46 Capuzzo, J.M. 1979. The effect of temperature on the toxicity of chlorinated cooling 

waters to marine animals – a preliminary review. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10:45-47. 

47 Best, B.R. 1981. Effects of chlorine induced oxidants on selected inshore organisms 

around Guam. Micronesica 37(4):287 (ABS); Masters Thesis, Univ.Guam (1981). 

48 Kott, Y. and Edlis, J. 1969. Effect of halogens on algae – I. Chlorella sorokiniana. Water 

Research. 3: 251-256. 

49 Betzer, N. and Kott, Y. 1969. Effect of halogens on algae – II. Cladophora sp. Research. 

3: 257-264. 

50 Madsen, T., Buchardt Boyd, H., Nylen, D., Rathmann Pedersen, A., Petersen, G.I. and 

Somonsen, F. 2001. Environmental and health assessment of substances in household detergents 

and cosmetic detergent products. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Miljoprojekt. 

Environmental Project No. 615. 

51 Acialloys Material Safety Data Sheets: www.acialloys.com/msds/h.html
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 84 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

52 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 2004. Whole Effluent 

Toxicity Testing. SETACTIP: Technical issue paper. 

53 Endresen, O., Behrens, H. L., Brynestad, S., Anderson, A. B. and R. Skjong. 2004. 

Challenges in global ballast water management. Marine pollution Bulletin 48: 615-623. 

54 Dalvi, A. G. I. Al-Rasheed, R. and Javeed, M.A. 2000. Haloacetic acids (HAAs) 

formation in desalination plants processes due to disinfectants. Research & Development Centre, 

Saline Water Conversion Corporation. Technical Report No. TR: 3803/APP 95003. Al-Jubail, 

Saudi Arabia. 

55 (EPA/600/R-01/110) Modeling Chlorine Decay and the Formation of Disinfection 

By-Products (DBPs) in Drinking Water, In: Controlling Disinfection By-Products and Microbial 

Contaminants in Drinking Water (EPA/600/R-01/110) December 2001. 

56 Standard Methods (2005) a.4500-Cl A - G. In: Standard methods for the examination of 

water & wastewater. APHA, AWW & WEF (Eds). American Public Health Association. 

Washington. Pp 4-57 – 4-68. 

57 Herwig RP, Cordell JR, Perrins JC, Dinnel PA, Gensemer RW, Stbblefield WA, Ruiz 

GM, Kopp JA, House ML and Cooper WJ. (2006). Ozone treatment of ballast water on the oil 

tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry, biology toxicity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 324 37-55 

58 Buchan KAH, Martin-Robichaud DJ and Benfey TJ. (2005) Measurement of dissolved 

Ozone in sea water: a comparison of methods. Equaculture Engineering 33 225-231. 

59 Perrins JC, Cooper WJ, JH van Leeuwen and Herwig RP. (2006). Ozonation of seawater 

from different locations: Formation and decay of total residual oxidant-implications for ballast 

water treatment. Mar Pol Bul 52 1023-1033. 

60 Katayose M, Yoshida K, Achiwa N and Eguchi M. (2007). Safety of electrolyzed 

seawater for use in aquaculture. Aquaculture 264 119-129. 

61 Sadiq, R & Rodriguez, M.J. (2004). Disinfection by-products in drinking water and the 

predictive models for their occurence: a review. National Research Council Canada. Report 

NRCC-44499. 

62 OECD (2005) OECD Emission scenario document on anti-fouling products. Series on 

emission scenario documents No.13. OECD environmental health and safety publications. 

ENV/JM/MONO (2005). 

63 WHO (2006) Guidelines for drinking water quality: first addendum to the third edition, 

volume 1. World Health Organization. WHO Press, Geneva 

64 WHO (2003)a

 Guidelines for safe recreational water environments. Volume 1: coastal and 

fresh waters. World Health Organization. WHO Press, Geneva. 
MEPC 59/2/10 

ANNEX 

Page 85 

I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc 

65 WHO (2003)b

 Chlorine in Drinking Water. Background document for the development of 

WHO guidelines for drinking water quality. World Health Organization. WHO Press, Geneva. 

WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/45. 

66 MEPC (2008). MEPC 58/2/1. Marine Environment Protection Committee. Harmful 

aquatic organisms in ballast water. Application for Final Approval of the OceanSaver Ballast 

Water Management System (OS BWMS), Submitted by Norway. 58th session, agenda item 2, 

19 March 2008. MEPC 58/2/1. 

__________