For reasons of economy, this document is pr inted in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to mee tings 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 ORGANI SMS IN BALLAST WATER

Application for Final Approval of the Resource Ballast Technologies System (Cavitation combined with Ozone a nd Sodium Hypochlorite treatment)

Submitted by South Africa

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document contains the non-conf idential 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 applica tion dossier will be provided to

the Marine Environmen t 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 regula tion D-3 that ballast water management systems which make use of Active Substances to comply with the C onvention shall be approved by the Organization, based on a procedure developed by the Organization. The “Pro cedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9)” was adopted by resolution MEPC.126(53) and updated by re solution MEPC.169(57). Procedure (G9) requests IMO to establish a Te chnical Group (the GESAMP-Ba llast Water Working Group) to review proposals for Basic and Final Approva l submitted by Administrations, and report its findings to the Organization. Procedure (G9) de tails in section 8 the methodology to be followed by an Administration seeking Ba sic or Final Approval of balla st 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 require ments for Final Approval, as stipulated in Procedure (G9), and comments from th e GESAMP-BWWG on the Basic Approval, South Africa hereby submits to the Organiza tion, in the annex to this document, the non-confidential part of the manufacturer’s application do ssier. The complete proposal for Final Approval including application dossier and relevant documents will be submitted to

the Marine Environment Divisi on 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 a bove proposal for Final Approval and decide as appropriate.

***

## MEPC 59/2/10

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

## ANNEX

NON-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIO N 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 year s 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 environm ental requirements using cavitation as a primary

treatment with small amounts of Active Substa nces to assist the cavitation process. The Active Substances (Ozone and Sodium Hypoc hlorite) are used as an assistant for the cavitation process. A full-scale land-based test f acility has been built at Cape Town Harbour (for type approval), capab le of testing the Resource Ballast Technologies (RBT) systems for flow rates of 200 m3/hr to 1500 m3/hr. Through tradit ional 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 curre ntly under way, with assistance from the Anchor Environmental Consultants, Universi ty of Cape Town, the Marine and Coastal Management branch of the Department of Envi ronmental 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 Technologi es (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 re view 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)” adopt ed by resolution MEPC.169(57).

Application for Basic Approval for the RBT syst em was reviewed at the fifth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG held at IMO headquarter s 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 fo r Final Approval.

The applicant’s responses to the recomme ndations of the GESAMP-BWWG mentioned in document MEPC 57/2/10, annex 5, are summarized in Table 1:

Table 1: Responses to Recommendatio ns 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 wi ll 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) shoul d 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 am ount 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 electro lytic 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 careful ly consider the effect of organic matter levels on th e 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 cont ain treatment by-products and

should therefore be consid ered as a waste stream warranting further investig ation 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 ope rated. 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 th e 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-pr oducts should be provided in the application for Final Approval See Application dossier, paragraph 4.1.2

2.6 It was noted that the Appli cant did not carry out chronic aquatic toxicity tests; this s hould 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 repo rt (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, inve rtebrates, fish and other biota

Appendix 4: Data on the effects of Free active chlorine, Chlori ne gas, Sodium hypochlorite on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish and other biota on aqua tic plants, invertebrates,

fish and other biota

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

other biota

Appendix 6: Data on the effects of Dibromoacetic acid on aquatic pl ants, 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 boar d and other disinfectants such as the hydroxyl radicals and hypochlorite which are introduced dire ctly into the media us ing 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 radi cal OH-, and hypochlorite ar e 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 Chem ical identifiers and components of Ozone gas and the hydroxyl radical ar e 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 pos ed 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 ve ry unstable molecules and, afte r 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 ve ssel may include fresh and salt water and hence

both are relevant here.

In seawater, Ozone and hypochlorite reacts wi th 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 halogena ted methanes and halogenated acetic acids, are also formed by a reaction with natu ral 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 in to 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, lik e 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 concentr ations including hydroxyl radicals (OH), free active chlorine (Cl 2 

## ) and hydrogen gas (H 2 

## ). In seawater, small am ounts of chlorine gas (Cl 2 

## ) are also likely to form on the anode surface of el ectrochemical system due to the presence of

chloride ions. Reactions with the cathode on th e electrochemical system will also produce other free active chlorine species

− HOCl and/or OCl -



## − depending on the pH. Chlorine gas (Cl 2 

## ) 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 r eactor 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 organi c 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 S outh Africa and Switzerland for characterization (Tables 2 to 13). Seawater samples comprised na tural 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-ex isting background levels of chlorine breakdown products, and brackish water comprise a mixture of water fr om these two sources. The dissolved organic content (DOC) and particulate or ganic content (POC) of the na tural 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 prod uction of Active Substan ces and their breakdown products. A broad range of DOC and POM concen trations 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 disinf ection 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 reacti on 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 treatm ent (immediate discharge scenar io). A second series of tests were thus conducted in which samples were preser ved with ascorbic acid 3 hours and 5 days after treatment and after which samples were analys ed for the major THM disinfection by-products. (Tables 8 to 17). It was decided to preserve sa mples 3 hours after treatment as this was found to be the average time that it takes to fill and drain a 200 m 3 

## simulated ballast tank.

Analytical methods employed by the respective laboratories for each suite of chemicals are described in the subsections below, and chemi cals relevant to this application highlighted

for each.

3.1.3.1 Ozone, hypochlorite, chlo rine gas and hydroxyl radicals

During the electrolytic process chloride ions (Cl - 

## ) are oxidized to chlorine (Cl 2 

## ) at the anode and are then hydrolysed to hypochlorous acid. The hydroxyl radical s are also produced at the anode, are highly reactive and decay within a few nanoseconds. Hypochlorous acid is the primary Active Substance resulting from th e electrolysis of seawater, and this is due to the abundance of chloride ions. In freshwater, the hydroxyl radica l 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., NH 2 

## Br, NHBr 2 

## and NHBr 3 

## ), 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 Cl 2



## .

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 w ith disinfection properties and are quantified as total residual oxidant (TRO) reported as mg/l Cl 2 

## or Br 2 

## (Perrins et al ., 2006).

Ozone, hypochlorite, chlorine gas and hydroxyl radicals were thus all assesse d 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 ba llast 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 (avera ge: 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 significan t relationships were ev ident between salinity and TRO or salinity and FRO, although both TRO and FRO were consiste ntly low in treated

freshwater and variable in brack ish 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 wa ter by the RBT reactor. A highly significant negative correlation was evident between Di ssolved Organic Carbon and TRO and FRO (Figure 1, P<0.001 and p<0.01, respec tively), probably owing to th e rapid reaction between the oxidants and organic matter pr esent 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 40Total 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 40Free 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 400Total 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 400Free Residual Oxidants (mg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/ l)



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

Total and Free residual oxidant concentr ations 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 wa ter) covering both high ( DOC >>1 mg/l) and low organic levels (DOC < 1 mg/l). Th is suggests that the f ilter 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

HITotal residual oxidants (mg/ l)



## Figure 2: Mean concentrations of Total Resi dual Oxidants (FRO) in treated ballast water (Treat) and in filter backwash (Filter) fo r three water types (natural seawater, fresh water, and brackish water) with di ffering dissolved organic content (DOC). LO = low DOC (<1 mg/l) and HI – high DOC (>> 1 mg/l). Error bars reflect ±1 SE. Each observation represen ts 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

HIFree residual oxidants (mg/ l)



## Figure 3: Mean concentrations of Free Residua l Oxidants (FRO) in treated ballast water (Treat) and in filter backwash (Filter) fo r three water types (natural seawater, fresh water, and brackish water) with di ffering dissolved organic content (DOC). LO = low DOC (<1 mg/l) and HI – high DO C (>> 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 oth er volatile organic compounds

The concentrations of the four trihalomethane s that constitute major disinfection by-products (bromodichloroform, bromoform, chloroform a nd dibromochloroform) were determined by Rand Water Analytical Laboratories using the headsp ace method. Concentration of the full suite of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the trea ted, control and filter ba ckwash samples were determined by ERWAT laboratories using the pur ge and trap technique followed by GC-MS.

Little or no THM or other volatil e organic species were detected in measurable concentrations (i.e. 1 μg/l) in the treated natu ral seawater, brackish water or freshwater samples fixed with ascorbic acid immediately afte r treatment (Tables 2 to 7).

However, a single THM species was detected in na tural 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 freshwat er 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 betw een salinity and concentr ation of bromoform or between Dissolved Organic Carbon a nd 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 c oncentration in treated water.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Bromoform (μg/ l)

Salinity (PSU) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Bromoform (μg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC, mg/ l)



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

concentration of Bromoform in wa ter treated using the RBT reactor

3.1.3.3 Haloacetic acids

Concentration of haloacetic acids in the trea ted, 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 concentr ations (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 concentra tion in the brackish water (mixture of natural seawater and municipal drinking wa ter) along with a second HAA species

− dichloroacetic acid (DCAA). However, concentrations of DCAA we re similar between the control and treated samples suggesting that the RBT reactor was not th e source of the DCAA and that it was present in the municipal drinking water. Thus, dichloroacetic is th e only HAA included as a Relevant Chemical in this application.

No significant relationship was evident between salinity and concentr ation of DBAA but a significant negative correlation was evident between DBAA concentration and Dissolved Organic Carbon (Figure 1, P<0.05). Th is is contrary to what has been reported elsewhere, where production of DBAA has been show n 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 th e water and suggests that redu ced concentrations of TROs and FROs in water with high organic cont ent are not associated with HAAs production.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Dibromoacetic 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 400Dibromoacetic acid (μg/ l)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/ l)



## Figure 5: Effects of salinity (top) and diss olved 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 treat ed 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 un likely 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

HIDibromoacetic acid (μg/ l)



## Figure 6: Mean concentrations of Dibromoacetic acid in treated ballast water (Treat) and in filter backwash (Filter) for three water types (natur al seawater, fresh water, and brackish water) with differing disso lved 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, brack ish 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 wate r type, and samples were anal ysed 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. Th e quantification limit was at 5 μ g/l for freshwater samples

and 10 μ g/L for seawater and brackish water sample s. The higher quantification limit for the latter samples is due to the strong matrix interf ences encountered in seaw ater and brackish water. Immediately after collection sa mples 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 μ g/l, and thus fall below the USEPA and Health Canada guidelines of 10 μ g/l (Sadique and Rodriguez, 2004). The concentration of bromate in all freshwater samples fell below the detection limit of 5 μ g/l and thus also fall below recommended guidelines in drinking water (Tables 2 to 7).MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 12I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 2: Chemical analysis of natural sea water samples treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), aswell as samples collected whenthefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment(Control). Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submittedto accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC,TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids –Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed forVOCs were preserved with the reducing reagent ascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13(aCSIR 099P,bNanoSep 0810367,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlSL01Test 1TreatSL04Test 1FilterSL07Test 2ControlSL02Test 2TreatSL05Test 2FilterSL08Test 3ControlSL03Test 3TreatSL06Test 3FilterSL09Salinity PSU 37.1 36.7 36.9 36.9 37.0 36.9 36.9 36.7 36.8TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.67 0.28 0.01 0.79 0.78 0.04 0.75 0.63FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.59 0.23 0.03 0.28 0.59 0.05 0.74 0.51DOC (filtered)amg/l 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 0.39 0.61 0.56 0.61 0.5 0.5 0.56 0.56 0.56TSSamg/l 51.7 50.4 90.9 52.1 11.7 79.2 51.7 8.5 39.2POMa% 1.849 1.236 5.455 2.207 - 5.23 2.015 - 9.843Bromatebμg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtrichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l <0.5 6.7 2.4 <0.5 13.1 6.4 <0.5 6.3 3.6bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndchlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndMEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 13I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSL01Test 1TreatSL04Test 1FilterSL07Test 2ControlSL02Test 2TreatSL05Test 2FilterSL08Test 3ControlSL03Test 3TreatSL06Test 3FilterSL09dVolatile organic compoundsm + p - Xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l <1 <1 3 <1 <1 5 <1 <1 <1Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 14I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSL01Test 1TreatSL04Test 1FilterSL07Test 2ControlSL02Test 2TreatSL05Test 2FilterSL08Test 3ControlSL03Test 3TreatSL06Test 3FilterSL091,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 15I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSL01Test 1TreatSL04Test 1FilterSL07Test 2ControlSL02Test 2TreatSL05Test 2FilterSL08Test 3ControlSL03Test 3TreatSL06Test 3FilterSL091,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 16I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 3: Chemical analysis of natural sea water supplemented withbarley malt to increase thedissolved organic carbon (DOC) andparticulate organic matter (POM) content and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat),as well as samples collected when thefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment(Control). Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submittedto accredited laboratories for analysisin South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids –Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed forVOCs were preserved with the reducing reagentascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificatesof analysis are included in Appendix 13(aCSIR 100,bNanoSep 0810370,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlSH01Test 1TreatSH04Test 1FilterSH07Test 2ControlSH02Test 2TreatSH05Test 2FilterSH08Test 3ControlSH03Test 3TreatSH06Test 3FilterSH09Salinity PSU 36.7 36.5 37 36.3 36.8 36.7 36.8 36.8 37.1TROmgCl/l nd 0.14 0.16 nd 0.16 0.18 nd 0.12 0.1FROmgCl/l nd 0.13 0.07 nd 0.13 0.08 nd 0.02 0.02DOC (filtered)amg/l 54 24 30 42 24 47 29 21 45DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 610 96 38 178 96 159 108 46 120TSSamg/l 59 41 392 102 242 544 59 258 191POMa% 52 49 58 36 51 81 29 69 58Bromatebμg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtrichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd 1.8 nd 0.8 1.4 <0.5 <0.5 1.3MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 17I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSH01Test 1TreatSH04Test 1FilterSH07Test 2ControlSH02Test 2TreatSH05Test 2FilterSH08Test 3ControlSH03Test 3TreatSH06Test 3FilterSH09bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndchlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddVolatile organic compoundsm + p - xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l <1 <1 3 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 1Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 18I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSH01Test 1TreatSH04Test 1FilterSH07Test 2ControlSH02Test 2TreatSH05Test 2FilterSH08Test 3ControlSH03Test 3TreatSH06Test 3FilterSH091,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 19I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlSH01Test 1TreatSH04Test 1FilterSH07Test 2ControlSH02Test 2TreatSH05Test 2FilterSH08Test 3ControlSH03Test 3TreatSH06Test 3FilterSH09Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 20I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 4: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water withmunicipal drinking water treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as well assamples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Control). Municipaldrinking water was filtered through an 40 micron spun-woundfilter prior to testing andtreatment in an effort to reduce pre-existingbackground levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type were collected approximately 30 minutesapart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) orsubmitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services)and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagent ascorbic acid(625 mg/l). Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 105,bNanoSep 0810374,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL09Salinity PSU 19.78 19.39 19.81 19.58 19.8 20.03 20.1 19.95 20.02TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.4 0.32 nd 0.59 0.4 nd 0.8 0.41FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.3 0.29 nd 0.44 0.31 nd 0.55 0.25DOC (filtered)amg/l 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.2 1 1 1 0.9 0.9DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1 1TSSa% 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3POMamg/l 41 28 45 38 34 35 38 31 37Bromatebμg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l 0.5 nd nd nd nd nd 0.5 nd nddichloroacetic acidμg/l 1.5 4.8 <0.5 1 4.4 nd 1 <0.5 1trichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l <0.5 2.3 0.6 <0.5 1 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 <0.5bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndMEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 21I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL09chlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddVolatile organiccompoundsm+p-xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l <1 1 2 <1 1 2 <1 2 3Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 22I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL091,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l 17 19 19 3 9 18 18 18 171,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l 4 5 5 1 3 5 4 4 4Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 23I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL09Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l 1 2 2 <1 <1 2 2 2 21,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 24I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 5: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water, supplemented with barley malt to increasethe dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat),as well as samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment(Control). Municipal drinking water was filtered through an 40micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in aneffort to reduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type werecollected approximately 30 minutes apart andanalysed immediately on site(Salinity, TRO, FRO) orsubmitted to accreditedlaboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS,POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids –Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT Laboratory Services) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed forVOCs were preserved with the reducing reagentascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificatesof analysis are included in Appendix 13(aCSIR 105,bNanoSep 0810374,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH09Salinity PSU 17.48 18.15 17.53 12.24 13.8 13.84 26.8 28.4 26.6TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.15 0.16 nd 0.12 0.12 nd 0.18 0.12FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.13 0.06 nd 0.11 0.06 nd 0.1 0.09DOC (filtered)amg/l 12.2 3.3 0.9 75 51.8 26.6 115 55.7 52.7DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 27.4 21.1 30.8 98.4 68.4 32.8 191.7 74.6 64.8TSSa% 52 51 80 57 76 22 96 87 27POMamg/l 79 75 95 71 72 100 145 147 165Bromatebμg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l nd 0.7 <0.5 nd nd <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5dichloroacetic acidμg/l 5.4 4 3.2 5.1 5.6 1.9 1.4 1.5 0.5trichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l 0.7 1.3 1.9 1 1.9 0.9 <0.5 1 0.8MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 25I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH09bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd <0.5 nd <0.5 <0.5 nd nd nd ndchlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddVolatile organic compoundsm + p-xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l 2 2 3 3 2 1 <1 1 <1Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 26I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH091,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l 17 20 24 32 27 12 8 10 71,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l 4 5 6 8 6 3 2 2 2Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 27I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH091,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l 2 2 5 4 3 1 <1 1 <11,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 28I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 6: Chemical analysis ofmunicipal drinking water treatedwith the RBT reactor (Treat), aswell as samples collected whenthefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected priorto treatment (Control). Municipal drinking water wasfiltered through an 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in aneffort to reduce pre-existing backgroundlevels of chlorine breakdown products.Three replicate samples of each type werecollected approximately 30 minutes apartand analysed immediately on site(Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT LaboratoryServices) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagentascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificatesof analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 009P,bNanoSep 0810370,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL09Salinity PSU 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2TRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.09 0.07 nd 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.09FRO mg Cl/l 0.04 0.07 0.02 nd 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07DOC (filtered)amg/l 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.09 1.09 1.34 1 1.17 1.51DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 1.38 1.52 1.76 1.57 1.38 1.48 1.38 1.67 1.76TSSamg/l 5.3 2.4 4.7 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.3 2.5 1.7POMaμg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Bromatebchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtrichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l <0.5 1 3.4 <0.05 2.6 2 <0.5 3.6 1.3bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndMEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 29I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL09chlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddVolatile organic compoundsm+p-xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 30I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL091,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l 41 3 7 <1 8 6 6 41,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l 10 1 2 <1 2 2 2 2Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 31I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL09Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 32I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 7: Chemical analysis of municipal drinking water, supplemented with barley malt to increase the dissolved organic carbon(DOC)and particulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated withthe RBT reactor (Treat), as wellas samples collected when thefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected priorto treatment (Control). Municipal drinking water wasfiltered through an 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in aneffort to reduce pre-existing backgroundlevels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples of each type were collectedapproximately 30 minutes apartand analysed immediately on site(Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa(DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; Haloacetic acids – Naosep Laboratories; VOC – ERWAT LaboratoryServices) and Switzerland (Bromate – EAWAG). Samples analysed for VOCs were preserved with the reducing reagentascorbic acid (625 mg/l). Certificates ofanalysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 100,bNanoSep 0810370,cEAWAG 01,dERWAT 2008/11/169)ChemicalTest 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH09Sample IDSalinity PSU 0.12 1.01 2.84 4.15 0.5 1.95 0.12 0.54 0.3TROmgCl/l nd 0.07 0.07 nd 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.1FROmgCl/l nd 0.02 0.07 nd 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.01DOC (filtered)amg/l 187 225 222 215 338 178 311 173 8DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 315 355 320 415 415 375 445 335 77TSSa% 69 84 74 68 68 97 73 56 74POMamg/l 34 39 55 83 36 52 33 46 34Bromatebμg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Haloacetic acidscchloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbroboacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndMEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 33I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH09trichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndbromochloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddibromoacetic acidμg/l nd 1.7 2.1 nd nd 1.4 nd 1.8 1.7bromodichloroacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndchlorodibromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndtribromoacetic acidμg/l nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nddVolatile organic compoundsm+p-xylenesμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromoformμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Styreneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1o-Xyleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Isopropylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Propylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Chlorotolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3,5-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1tert-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trimethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1sec-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,4-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <14-Isopropyltolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 34I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH091,2-Dichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1n-Butylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,4-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Naphthaleneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hexachlorobutadieneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichlorofluoromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trans-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,2-Dichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <12,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromochloromethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chloroformμg/l 10 3 2 8 7 8 10 18 151,1,1-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Carbon Tetrachlorideμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Benzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Fluorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Trichloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromomethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Bromodichloromethaneμg/l 2 <1 <1 2 2 2 2 4 4MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 35I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docChemicalTest 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH09Trans-1,3,-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tolueneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,2-Trichloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,3-Dichloropropaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Dibromochloromethaneμg/l 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,2-Dibromoethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Tetrachloroetheneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chlorobenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <11,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethaneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzeneμg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 36I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 8: Chemical analysis of natural seawater samples treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as well as samples collected whenthefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment(Control). Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submittedto accredited laboratories for analysisin South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIRAnalytical Laboratories; THMs – RandWater Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescribed by RandWater) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown andreact with organic matter to produce torelevant disinfection by-products. Duplicatesamples were kept for 5 days in the darkafter which they were preserved withascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysisare included in Appendix 13(aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/814,cRand Water 2008/853)ChemicalTest 1ControlSL01Test 1TreatSL04Test 1FilterSL07Test 2ControlSL02Test 2TreatSL05Test 2FilterSL08Test 3ControlSL03Test 3TreatSL06Test 3FilterSL09Salinity PSU 35.5 34.6 35.2 35.5 35.1 35.2 35.5 35 34.7TRO mg Cl/l 0.01 0.57 0.3 nd 0.65 0.15 0.02 0.58 0.36FRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.5 0.41 nd 0.46 0.21 0.02 0.42 0.26DOC (filtered)amg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1DOC (unfiltered)amg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1TSSamg/l 6 70 20 5 37 12 4 12 16POMa% 100 30 41 100 40 57 94 52 50Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroformμg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558bromoformμg/l <0.543 6.2 8.2 <0.543 7.2 7.6 <0.543 6.7 10chloroformμg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 37I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc5-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlSL16Test 1TreatSL10Test 1FilterSL13Test 2ControlSL17Test 2TreatSL11Test 2FilterSL14Test 3ControlSL18Test 3TreatSL12Test 3FilterSL15dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168<0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558Percentage increase/decrease ofTHMs in 5-day old samples5-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlSL16Test 1TreatSL10Test 1FilterSL13Test 2ControlSL17Test 2TreatSL11Test 2FilterSL14Test 3ControlSL18Test 3TreatSL12Test 3FilterSL15dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168<0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0bromoform% 0 54.8 22.0 0.0 - 15.8 0.0 -22.4 0.0chloroform% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0dibromochloroform% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 38I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 9: Chemical analysis of natural sea water, supplemented with barley malt to increase the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) andparticulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor (Treat), as well assamples collected when thefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment(Control). Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submittedto accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; THMs – RandWater Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescribed by RandWater) after 3 hours to allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react withorganic matter to produce torelevant disinfection by-products. Duplicatesamples were kept for 5 days in the darkafter which they were preserved withascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) and submitted toRand Water for analysis. Certificates ofanalysis are included in Appendix 13(aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/844,cRand Water 2008/857)ChemicalTest 1ControlSH01Test 1TreatSH04Test 1FilterSH07Test 2ControlSH02Test 2TreatSH05Test 2FilterSH08Test 3ControlSH03Test 3TreatSH06Test 3FilterSH09Salinity PSU 34.9 34.4 35.7 34.4 35.2 35.2 35.2 34.8 35.2TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.11 0.18 nd 0.28 0.19 nd 0.21 0.18FRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.1 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.14DOC (filtered)amg/l 92 567 58 416 394 401 117 274 284DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 1594 367 79 575 472 283 199 278 107TSSamg/l 223 207 293 140 142 324 243 121 343POMa% 100 100 100 81 100 100 94 100 100Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroformμg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558bromoformμg/l <0.543 2.2 12 <0.543 10 3.8 <0.543 <0.543 6.5chloroformμg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 39I:\MEPC\59\2-10.doc5-Day Old samplesTest 1ControlSH16Test 1TreatSH10Test 1FilterSH13Test 2ControlSH17Test 2TreatSH11Test 2FilterSH14Test 3ControlSH18Test 3TreatSH12Test 3FilterSH15bromodichloroformμg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558bromoformμg/l <0.543 0.83 11 <0.543 9.9 1.1 <0.543 <0.543 5chloroformμg/l <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328 <0.328dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0bromoform% 0.0 -62.3 -8.3 0.0 -1.0 -71.1 0.0 0.0 -23.1chloroform% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0dibromochloroform% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 40I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 10: Chemical analysis of a mixturenatural sea water with municipal drinkingwater treated with the RBT reactor (Treat),as wellas samples collected when the filter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samplescollected prior to treatment (Control).Municipal drinking water was filtered through a 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing andtreatment in an effort toreduce pre-existing background levels of chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samplesof each type were collectedapproximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accreditedlaboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM –CSIR Analytical Laboratories;THMs – Rand Water AnalyticalServices). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l asprescribed by Rand Water) after 3 hoursto allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter to produce to relevant disinfection byproducts. Duplicate samples were kept for 5days in the dark after which they were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l) andsubmitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysisare included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/841,cRand Water 2008/853)ChemicalTest 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL09Salinity PSU 19.85 19.62 20.23 22.3 22.2 20.15 20.64 20.49 21.31TRO mg Cl/l nd 0.43 0.24 nd 0.27 0.19 nd 0.4 0.27FRO mg Cl/l 0.02 0.43 0.17 nd 0.16 0.13 nd 0.28 0.2DOC (filtered)amg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1DOC (unfiltered)amg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1TSSamg/l 45 10 17 15 12 37 21 13 45POaM % 89 62 54 66 60 37 36 60 38Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroformμg/l 2.6 3 2.9 2 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.7bromoformμg/l <0.543 8.6 8.9 <0.543 8.4 10 <0.543 8.8 11chloroformμg/l 14 16 14 10 13 15 14 15 14dibromochloroformμg/l 1.8 2.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.6 1.7 2.5 2.4MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 41I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTHMs in samples produced viaRBT treatment (treat/filter –control)Test 1ControlBL01Test 1TreatBL04Test 1FilterBL07Test 2ControlBL02Test 2TreatBL05Test 2FilterBL08Test 3ControlBL03Test 3TreatBL06Test 3FilterBL09bromodichloroformμg/l - 0.4 0.3 - 0.6 0.9 - 0.2 0bromoformμg/l - 8.6 8.9 - 8.4 10 - 8.8 11chloroformμg/l - 2 0 - 3 5 - 1 0dibromochloroformμg/l - 0.7 0.6 - 0.7 1.1 - 0.8 0.75-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlBL16Test 1TreatBL10Test 1FilterBL13Test 2ControlBL17Test 2TreatBL11Test 2FilterBL14Test 3ControlBL18Test 3TreatBL12Test 3FilterBL15bromodichloroformμg/l 3.1 3.5 3.4 2.7 2.9 md md md 2.7bromoformμg/l 0.8 12 11 0.59 7 md md md 11chloroformμg/l 17 18 17 16 15 md md md 16dibromochloroformμg/l 2.2 3.4 3.1 1.9 2.6 md md md 2.8Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% 19.23 16.67 17.24 35.00 11.54 - 0.00bromoform% 47.33 39.53 23.60 8.66 -16.67 - 0.00chloroform% 21.43 12.50 21.43 60.00 15.38 - 14.29dibromochloroform% 22.22 36.00 29.17 26.67 18.18 16.67Note: md denotes missing data due to incomplete laboratory report supplied by Rand WaterMEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 42I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 11: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water withmunicipal drinking water, supplemented with barley malt to increasethe dissolved organic carbon (DOC) andparticulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor(Treat), as well as samples collected when the filter unit wasbackwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior totreatment (Control). Municipal drinkingwater was filtered through a 40 micronspun-wound filter prior to testing andtreatment in an effort to reduce pre-existing background levelsof chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart andanalysed immediately on site(Salinity, TRO, FRO) orsubmitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; THMs –Rand Water Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMswere preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescribed byRand Water) after 3 hours to allow TROspresent in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter toproduce to relevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after which they werepreserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l)and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysis are included inAppendix 13 (aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/844,cRand Water 2008/857ChemicalTest 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH09Salinity PSU 19.6 19.5 19.6 19.9 19.5 19.5 19.9 19.7 19.5TRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.1 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.13FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.08 0.1 nd nd 0.09 nd 0.05 0.06DOC (filtered)amg/l 232 260 264 218 241 274 254 230 241DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 261 311 300 233 267 322 289 267 278TSSamg/l 147 96 434 109 124 306 129 144 60POMamg/l 98 97 87 100 100 85 100 88 82Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroform<0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558bromoform<0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.63 <0.543 <0.543 0.83chloroform11 13 12 11 13 13 12 12 13dibromochloroform<1.168 <1.169 <1.170 <1.171 <1.172 <1.173 <1.174 <1.175 <1.176MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 43I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTHMs in samples produced viaRBT treatment (treat/filter –control)Test 1ControlBH01Test 1TreatBH04Test 1FilterBH07Test 2ControlBH02Test 2TreatBH05Test 2FilterBH08Test 3ControlBH03Test 3TreatBH06Test 3FilterBH09bromodichloroformμg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0bromoformμg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0chloroformμg/l - 2 1 - 2 2 - 0 1dibromochloroformμg/l - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 05-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlBH16Test 1TreatBH10Test 1FilterBH13Test 2ControlBH17Test 2TreatBH11Test 2FilterBH14Test 3ControlBH18Test 3TreatBH12Test 3FilterBH15bromodichloroformμg/l <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558 <0.558bromoformμg/l <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.63 <0.543 <0.543 0.83chloroformμg/l 14 14 14 0 16 15 14 16 15dibromochloroformμg/l <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168 <1.168Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00bromoform% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00chloroform% 27.27 7.69 16.67 -100.00 23.08 15.38 16.67 33.33 15.38dibromochloroform% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 44I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 12: Chemical analysis of municipaldrinking water treated with the RBT reactor(Treat), as well assamples collected whenthefilter unit was backwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior to treatment (Control). Municipal drinking waterwas filtered through a 40 micron spun-wound filter prior to testing and treatment in an effort to reduce pre-existingbackground levels of chlorine breakdown products.Three replicate samples of each type were collectedapproximately 30 minutes apart and analysed immediately on site (Salinity, TRO, FRO) or submitted to accreditedlaboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POC – CSIRAnalytical Laboratories; THMs – Rand Water AnalyticalServices). Samples analysed for THMs were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l asprescribed by Rand Water) after 3 hoursto allow TROs present in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter to produce to relevant disinfectionby-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the darkafter which they were preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l)and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysis are included in Appendix 13 (aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/841,cRand Water 2008/853)ChemicalTest 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL09Salinity PSU 0.18 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.13TRO mg Cl/l nd nd nd 0.01 0.01 0.1 nd 0.06 0.04FRO mg Cl/l nd 0.02 nd 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05DOC (filtered)amg/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2TSSamg/l 14 7 5 11 7 6 7 6 22POMa% 48 104 86 75 100 100 100 100 87Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroformμg/l 6.5 8.7 7.8 7.2 7.7 7.3 5.7 7.6 7.6bromoformμg/l 1.8 2.8 2.6 1.4 2.1 2.6 1.1 2.4 2.4chloroformμg/l 32 38 35 34 35 36 28 35 34dibromochloroformμg/l 4 4.7 5 4 4.7 4.9 3.3 4.9 4.8MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 45I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTHMs in samples produced viaRBT treatment (treat/filter –control)Test 1ControlFL01Test 1TreatFL04Test 1FilterFL07Test 2ControlFL02Test 2TreatFL05Test 2FilterFL08Test 3ControlFL03Test 3TreatFL06Test 3FilterFL09bromodichloroformμg/l - 2.2 1.3 - 0.5 0.1 - 1.9 1.9bromoformμg/l - 2.8 2.6 - 2.1 2.6 - 2.4 2.4chloroformμg/l - 6 3 - 1 2 - 7 6dibromochloroformμg/l - 0.7 1 - 0.7 0.9 - 1.6 1.55-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlFL16Test 1TreatFL10Test 1FilterFL13Test 2ControlFL17Test 2TreatFL11Test 2FilterFL14Test 3ControlFL18Test 3TreatFL12Test 3FilterFL15bromodichloroformμg/l Md 8.6 8.5 7.3 9.2 7.6 8.1 7.8 8.1bromoformμg/l Md 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.8chloroformμg/l md 41 39 37 41 37 39 39 35dibromochloroformμg/l md 5.7 5.4 4.5 5.7 5.3 4.8 5.2 5.3Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% Md -1.15 8.97 1.39 19.48 4.11 42.11 2.63 6.58bromoform% Md -3.57 3.85 35.71 23.81 7.69 90.91 4.17 16.67chloroform% md 7.89 11.43 8.82 17.14 2.78 39.29 11.43 2.94dibromochloroform% md 21.28 8.00 12.50 21.28 8.16 45.45 6.12 10.42MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 46I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTable 13: Chemical analysis of a mixture natural sea water with municipal drinking water, supplemented with barley malt to increasethe dissolved organic carbon (DOC) andparticulate organic matter (POM) content, and treated with the RBT reactor(Treat), as well as samples collected when the filter unit wasbackwashed (Filter), and control samples collected prior totreatment (Control). Municipal drinkingwater was filtered through a 40 micronspun-wound filter prior to testing andtreatment in an effort to reduce pre-existing background levelsof chlorine breakdown products. Three replicate samples ofeach type were collected approximately 30 minutes apart andanalysed immediately on site(Salinity, TRO, FRO) orsubmitted to accredited laboratories for analysis in South Africa (DOC, TSS, POM – CSIR Analytical Laboratories; THMs –Rand Water Analytical Services). Samples analysed for THMswere preserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l as prescribed byRand Water) after 3 hours to allow TROspresent in the treated water to breakdown and react with organic matter toproduce to relevant disinfection by-products. Duplicate samples were kept for 5 days in the dark after which they werepreserved with ascorbic acid (5.2 g/l)and submitted to Rand Water for analysis. Certificates of analysis are included inAppendix 13 (aCSIR 198,bRand Water2008/844,cRand Water 2008/857)ChemicalTest 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH09Salinity PSU 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.17 0.2 0.18 0.37 0.17 0.25TRO mg Cl/l nd nd 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.01 nd nd 0.02FRO mg Cl/l 0.03 0.04 nd 0.03 0.03 nd 0.03 0.04 ndDOC (filtered)amg/l 416 394 401 117 274 284 567 58 123DOC (unfiltered)amg/l 416 394 417 117 274 289 675 58 136TSSamg/l 214 151 237 93 137 202 209 70 77POMa% 45 54 38 56 75 82 40 82 81Trihalomethanesbbromodichloroformμg/l 4 4.2 4.6 3.8 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.4bromoformμg/l 0.67 0.8 0.8 <0.543 0.75 0.8 0.69 0.69 0.72chloroformμg/l 30 31 33 32 33 32 31 33 32dibromochloroformμg/l 1.2 1.5 1.5 <1.168 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4MEPC 59/2/10ANNEXPage 47I:\MEPC\59\2-10.docTHMs in samples produced viaRBT treatment (treat/filter –control)Test 1ControlFH01Test 1TreatFH04Test 1FilterFH07Test 2ControlFH02Test 2TreatFH05Test 2FilterFH08Test 3ControlFH03Test 3TreatFH06Test 3FilterFH09bromodichloroformμg/l - 0.2 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - -0.3 0bromoformμg/l - 0.13 0.13 - 0.75 0.8 - 0 0.03chloroformμg/l - 1 3 - 1 0 - 2 1dibromochloroformμg/l - 0.3 0.3 - 1.5 1.5 - 0 05-Day Old samplescTest 1ControlFH16Test 1TreatFH10Test 1FilterFH13Test 2ControlFH17Test 2TreatFH11Test 2FilterFH14Test 3ControlFH18Test 3TreatFH12Test 3FilterFH15bromodichloroformμg/l 6 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.5 6 2.8 4.4bromoformμg/l <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 0.6 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543 <0.543chloroformμg/l 30 28 27 30 29 31 30 32 32dibromochloroformμg/l 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.5 1.3 1.9Percentage increase/decreaseof THMs in 5-day old samplesbromodichloroform% 50.0 28.6 19.6 52.6 26.1 31.0 36.4 -31.7 0.0bromoform% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0chloroform% 0.0 -9.7 -18.2 -6.3 -12.1 -3.1 -3.2 -3.0 0.0dibromochloroform% 108.3 60.0 53.3 122.6 60.0 46.7 78.6 -7.1 35.7

## 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 (tot al 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 take s approximately 1 hour to fill a 200 m 3 

## simulated ballast tank a 50 L sample was taken directly from the ballas t pipe in order to monitor decay immediately

after treatment. TRO and FRO concentrations we re also measured on days 1, 2 and 5 after treatment for seawater samples. In brackish wa ter samples TRO and FRO concentrations were

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

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

as follows:

C = C 0 

## e -kt



## where

C = the concentration at time t

C 0 

## = 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 wate r (0.15-0.18) with high organic content (see Tables 3, and 5), and thus it was not possible to determine decay ra tes 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 ra tes 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 0.75Total 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 ch lorine 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 0.50Free Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l) FRO (A) FRO (B) FRO (C)



## Figure 8: Short-term decay of free resi dual 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 ch lorine 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 0.80Total 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 TR O (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 0.50Free Residual Oxidant (mgCl/l) FRO (A) FRO (B) FRO (C)

1 day 2 days 5 days



## Figure 10: Long-term decay of free res idual 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 FR O (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 0.60Total 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 (salin ity = 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) a nd 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 0.50Free Residual Oxidant (mg Cl/l) FRO (A) FRO (B) FRO (C)



## Figure 12: Short-term decay of free residual oxi dant in a mixture natural sea water and municipal drinking water (salin ity = 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 rate s 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 tr eatment 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 ~4 o 

## C and sent to Rand Water Analyti ca Laboratory for analysis. TH Ms 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 trea ted water and filter backwash on days 0 and day 5. For the major ity 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, bracki sh 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 FHFTotal THM concentration (ug/l)



### 0 Day

5 Day



## Figure 13: Average (± SD) concentration of total trihalomethane s (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 ba ckwashed (Filter). SLT = seawater low organic (treat), SLF = seawater low or ganic (Filter). SH T = seawater high organic (treat), SF = seawater high organ ic (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) concentrat ions of total THMs for each test cycle (see raw data in Tables 8 to 3). It is evident that th ere is an increase in THMs over a 5-day period in seawater, brackish water and freshwater (low or ganic), but this increa se 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 concentratio ns (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 ac ids (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 cont ent. 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 s hown below (Figure 14 and Table 16).

It is evident that bromoform concentrations incr ease after 24 hours, however the difference in not significant at p = 0.05 (p = 0.314, n = 4), whereas av erage HAA concentrations decrease slightly

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

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

three hours after treatment and 24 ho urs after treatment of seawater

## MEPC 59/2/10

ANNEX Page 55

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

## Table 16: Concentrations (μg/l) of bromofor m 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 substanc es listed in Table 17 have been identified as being relevant (i.e. Active Substances or Relevant Chemical s). Relevant Chemical identifiers of these

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

Table 17: Components and relevant details (che mical identifiers) for Active Substances (AS) and Relevant Chemicals (RC) iden tified 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 O 3 

## 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 Cl 2 

## Cl–Cl - RC

Bromoform 75-25-2 252.73 CHBr 3 

## 12.0 μg/l RC

Dibromoacetic

acid 631-64-1 217.84408 C 2 

## H 2 

## Br 2 

## O 2 

## 13.1 μg/l RC

* 

### This is the maximum concentration of Total Residual Ox idants in water samples treat ed 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, in vertebrates 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, Ch lorine 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 wa ter being treated. It should be noted that the RBT reactor system employs only small am ounts of Ozone gas, hydrogen gas and oxygen gas within the methodology of the equipment. These gase s 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 al so 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 situ ated 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 dr awn into the system directly fo rm the harbour th rough 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 gear ed valve is fitted to the intake pipe, to facilitate the regulation of wate r flow from both the harbour and also the fresh water tank that feeds into the 12-inch uptake pi peline. Fresh water is delivere d 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 a llow 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 ar e installed to facilitate the change over from

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

the 6-inch reactor and al so the 10-inch reactors.

A vacuum pump is connected to the uptake pipeli ne 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 ch ambers to allow for certain effect s and treatment. The test units are fabricated from stainless steel with flange d 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 el ectrodes are fitted fo llows, these electrode chambers are of a much larger diameter to the 6-in ch 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 se ction of the RBT reactor, this cavitation chamber is of a larger diameter than th e 6-inch inlet pipeline to ensure that the flow

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

returns the outer diameter to 6 inches. The fo llowing 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 in stalled 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 testin g of the Ozone generation equipment. A 50 mm pipeline directs the flow of the mixed water and gas to the ventur i. Ozone gas is drawn into the venturi (No.23) after which the wa ter and gas mixture are directed into a contact chamber (No.9) The Ozone contact chamber mixes the gas and wate r and ensures that the Ozone gas is infused into the water eliminating large bubbles that c ould possibly affect the e fficient 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 trea ted 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 undertake n. Valve (No.19) is installed to facilitate any possible maintenance to the installed pump. Valv es (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 me thod is Mechanical Cavitation. Cavitation is enhanced by the addition of Oz one gas, hydrogen gas and oxygen ga s. 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 elect rochemical 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 outlin e of the RBT Reactor is shown in Appendix 15 and comprises two chambers, i.e. Chambe r 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 vi a 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 cont ains 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 wa ter 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 direct ed into the contact chamber wher e it is infused into the water that is then directed to the Ozone gas inle ts. Incorporated into the Chamber 1 are eight Electrode Housings which contai n the electrodes or chlorinati on elements. The electrodes are

connected in series and connect ed 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, Oz one generator turned on and

the ECA rectifier is operational and water fl ows through the Reactor:

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

.2 water enters the electrode chamber and is treated with Electr o 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, a nd 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 syst em is installed into a vessel all components operate automatically, and are controlled by a progr ammable 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 sy stem 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 th e venturi, causing a vacuum that draws the Ozone gas into the venture; the Ozone gas is infuse d 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 s upplies 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 descripti on of electrical control system.

System voltage driven from Port Electricity s upply 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 di vided 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 Ozon e 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 select or switches and stop start push buttons, VSD remote monitoring unit and pote ntiometer for pump speed control.

90 KW and 45 KW pump motor, select able speed contro l common to both.

VSD rated 90 KW overload for 90 KW motor achie ved 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 w ithin 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 w ithin certain vacuum parameters that can vary depending on the flow of water through the venturi. In the event that the fl ow is either increased or decreased, due to varying pumping conditions su ch 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 su ction 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 in to Ozone gas. Should the flow of water through the venturi decrease, the am ount of negative pressure create d at the venturi will decrease proportionally, this reduced flow through the venturi will thus reduce th e 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 Modulat ed 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 feedb ack derived from cu rrent shunt on output.

This positive or negative error sign al 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 DAT A SHEETS (G9: 4.2.7)

Material Safety Data Sheets for all Active Subs tances and Relevant Chemicals are provided in the B References (refer to full application dossier)

6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

6.1 Screening for persistence, bioaccu mulation 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, Ch lorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite Appendix 5: Hydrogen gas Appendix 6: Dibromoacetic acid

A summary of these data are pr ovided 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, Ch lorine gas, Sodium hypochlorite Appendix 5: Hydrogen gas Appendix 6: Dibromoacetic acid

A summary of these data are pr ovided 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 acut e 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 ob tained 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 dilu ted and pumped through the experimental tanks immediately post treatment with the RBT react or. Water quality measurements (salinity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen) and chemi cal analyses of dissolved organic carbon, free

chlorine and trihalomethanes were undertak en daily during experimental trials.

Growth of G. verrucosa was inhibited in 100% TBW (IC 50 

## = 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 con centration also caused 100% mortality for P. knysnaensis (LC 50 

## = 35% TBW) but had no effect on L. richardsonii (LC 50 

## = 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 le vels 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 μ g/l), which was well below publish ed 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 conducte d 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 toxici ty 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 c oncentrations of TBW (100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% and 6.25%) over varying periods of time, and s ublethal 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 IC 25 

## and IC 50 

## 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 prepar ation meet all three criteria for PBT?

Full details on persistence, bioaccumulati on 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 natu ral 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 natu ral 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 μ g/l. It was found that TRO concentrations were below

this concentration thr ee 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 an d particulate organic matt er on Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals are discussed in paragraph 3.1 above.

6.3.2 Characterization of degradat ion route and rate (G9: 5.3.5)

An assessment of the ra tes of breakdown and forma tion of Active Substances

and Relevant Chemicals in the natural seawater , freshwater and bracki sh 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 conc entration (PEC) of bromoform, dibromoacetic acid and TROs were estimated using the MAM-PEC V2.0 mode l for a worst case scenario “commercial

harbour”.

The MAM-PEC model was developed for the leachi ng of anti-fouling paints from ships and it calculates the steady state concen tration 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 st able and persistent w ith little or no reduc tion in concentrations over a 24-hour period. The MAM-PEC “commercial ha rbour” scenario is based on the Rotterdam harbour in the Netherlands, which situated alo ng a large estuarine rive r 2 km from the mouth (OECD, 2005). The harbour may have additional fl ushing 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 n ecessary 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 wate r intake for 2008 amounted to 6.13 million m 3 

## and total ballast water discharge to 2.76 million m 3 

## (Port of Rotterdam, 2008). This indicates that the port of Rotterdam is mainly a ballast water ex porting 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 th eir voyage, while the inventory assumed that all

ballast water was taken in/disch arged directly into the har bour (Port of Rotterdam, 2008). In order to calculate a daily discharge of ballast water the monthly discharge quantity was divided by 29, giving an estimat ed daily release of 95, 172.4 m 3 

## /day.

6.3.3.1 Bromoform

It was decided to model the PE C 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 μ g/l, and 3.17 μ g/l, respectively (Table 17 above). Bromate was assumed to be persistent with no abiotic, bi ological or photolytic degradation. Given th e discharge of 95,172.4 m 3 

## 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 c oncentrations of brom oform in a standard

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

of 0.0588 μ g/l in the harbour and 0.076 μ g/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 μ g/l the average daily release into the harbour and surrounding waters

would be 0.0478 μ g/l and 0.003 μ g/l, respectively.

Table 18: PEC of bromoform in an OECD “commercial harbour” scenario determined using MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum brom oform concentration of 12 μg/l and a daily emission rate of 1142.06 g/day

Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters

Maximum concentration μ g/l 0.0706 0.00400

95% concentration μ g/l 0.0686 0.00344 Average concentration μ g/l 0.0257 0.000724

Median concentration μ g/l 0.00842 0.00140

Minimum Concentration μ g/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 μ g/l 0.0478 0.003

95% concentration μ g/l 0.0465 0.00233 Average concentration μ g/l 0.0174 0.00049

Median concentration μ g/l 0.0057 0.00095

Minimum Concentration μ g/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 maxi mum concentrations of bromoform in an OECD

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

of 100 μ g/l for both maximum and average bromoform co ncentrations 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 μ g/l, and 3.17 μ g/l, respectively (Table 2 above). DBAA was assumed to be persis tent with no abiotic, biological or photolytic degradation. Given the discharge of 95,172 m 3 

## ballast water per day, containing 13.1 μ g/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 standa rd OECD “commercial harbour” are summarized below (Table 20), and reveal a maximum PEC of 0.111 μ g/l in the

harbour and 0.0268 μ g/l in the surrounding waters.

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

MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum DBAA con centration of 13.1 μg/l and a daily emission rate of 610.01 g/day

Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters

Maximum concentration μ g/l 0.111 0.005

95% concentration μ g/l 0.109 0.00446 Average concentration μ g/l 0.0387 0.000894

Median concentration μ g/l 0.0103 0.00177

Minimum Concentration μ g/l 0.00104 0.000872

Table 21: PEC of DBAA in an OECD “commerc ial harbour” scenario determined using MAM-PEC V2.0 with an average DBAA co ncentration of 3.17 μg/l and a daily emission rate of 301.09 g/day

Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters

Maximum concentration μ g/l 0.0268 0.001

95% concentration μ g/l 0.0263 0.00108 Average concentration μ g/l 0.00937 0.000216

Median concentration μ g/l 0.00248 0.000427

Minimum Concentration μ g/l 0.000339 0.000211

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

dibromoacetic acid in an OECD “commercia l harbour” are well below the WHO recommended drinking water standard of 100 μ g/l for both maximum and average DBAA concentrations in

seawater treated with the RBT reactor. It is concluded that bromofor m 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 th e discharge of 95,172 m 3 

## ballast water per day, containing 0.8 μ g/l bromoform, this would result in worst case scenario daily rele ase 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 μ g/l in the harbour

and 0.011 μ g/l in the surrounding waters.

Table 22: PEC of TRO in an OECD “commerc ial harbour” scenario determined using

MAM-PEC V2.0 with a maximum TRO con centration of 0.8 mg/l and a daily emission rate of 761 37.92 g/day

Unit In harbour In Surrounding Waters

Maximum concentration μ g/l 0.135 0.011

95% concentration μ g/l 0.133 0.0107 Average concentration μ g/l 0.056 0.00221

Median concentration μ g/l 0.0412 0.00457

Minimum Concentration μ g/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 litera ture suggests that none of the Active Substances or Relevant Chemicals generated by the RBT reactor through the tr eatment 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 K

oc 

## value of dibromoacetic acid (1.901 l/kg) i ndicates that the adsorption potential is relatively low (<500 l/kg), and thus it will have low sediment toxicity. The K

oc 

## of bromoform is 218.81 (<500 l/kg) and thus adsorption to sediment is of little concern. Since K

oc 

## of both major DPBs was <500 l/kg it was not necessary to co nsider 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 assessm ent 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 fr eshwater 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 Chemi cal Investigation Services and the Centre for Materials Engineering, University of Cape Town, respective ly. 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 th at there is a very limited amount of work available in the published literature concerning th e impact of various Active Substances on the corrosion of steel in ship balla st 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 so dium 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 hypoc hlorite does not damage coatings and can thus be used at

this level to treat ballast water.

With regard to Ozone, the pict ure 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 doe s not increase the rate of corrosion of mild

steel.

Finally it may be noted that the Electro-Cleen TM 

## BWTS has been approved by the IMO as per MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7, on 10 October 2008. This ba llast 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 th e IMO implies that for this Ballast Water Treatment System, test work would have shown th at 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 determ ined 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 invol ved processes of ozonation and chlorination. The corrosion rates were measured using accelerated corrosion techniques and involved potentiodynamic scanning and polar ization 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 unt reated 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 wa ter 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 seawat er resulting from cavitation during treatment.

7.1.3 Ongoing corrosion testing

A long-term corrosion test, to further s ubstantiate these results and as required for Guidelines (G8) Type approval, will run in pa rallel with the type approval testing and form part of Guidelines (G8) app lication to the Administration.

7.2 Risks to human health

Risks to human health arise from two sources:

.1 human contact with water treated w ith the RBT reacto r (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 r outes 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 br omoform, dibromoacetic acid and TROs, as

well as the maximum concentrations in 100% treat ed ballast water, fall well below the WHO guidelines for drinking water and bathing water. Note: T he WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO,2006) can be used as a basis for screeni ng the potential ri sk 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 ha rbour” 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 environm ental 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 PEC

max

a 

## Bromoform 100 μ g/l 100 μ g/l 12.0 μ g/l 0.0588

μ g/l

a 

## Dibromoacetic

acid 100 μ g/l 100 μ g/l 13.1 μ g/l 0.111

μ g/l

b 

## TRO (chlorine) 5 mg/l 5 mg/l 0.8 mg/l 0.135

μ g/l

a 

## Bromate 10 μ g/l 10 μ g/l <5 (freshwater)

<10 seawater -

a 

## WHO (2006), WHO (2003) b



## 7.2.2 Exposure to gases released from the rea ctor or from treated ballast water

Potential risks associated with human exposur e to hydrogen and chlorine gas produced by the RBT reactor were assessed by estimating th e rate of production for hydrogen gas through desk-top methods and by monitoring gas concen trations in the header space of a 200 m 3



## simulation ballast tank.

7.2.2.1 Desk-top assessment of hydr ogen and chlorine gas production

Hydrogen and chlorine gas are produced through a process of el ectrolysis of aqueous NaCl (equation 1 below) on the electr odes 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 H 2 

## O + 2 e - 

## → H 2 

## + 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 H 2 

## O(l) + 2 e - 

## → H 2 

## (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 - 

## → Cl 2 

## + 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 Cl 2



## .

Anode (+): 2 Cl - 

## → Cl 2 

## + 2 e 

## In summary, electrolysis of a queous NaCl solutions gives a mixt ure of hydrogen and chlorine gas and an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution.

2 NaCl(aq) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 Na + 

## (aq) + 2 OH - 

## (aq) + H 2 

## (g) + Cl 2 

## (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 m 2 

## (2 surfaces each 100 mm by 100 mm), and that the anode current density = 550 A/m 2 

## , we can then calculate the chlo rine 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% curr ent efficiency in saturated brine, the above anode configuratio n 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 Cl 2 

## output is 13.2275 x 96% = 8.598 g

Cl 2 

## per hour. Using the same equations, the ra te of hydrogen gas production is estimated to be 0.49 g H 2 

## per hour.

With a flow in the cell of 200 m3/hour, this results in a Cl 2 

## gas concentration of less then 0.05 ppm and H 2 

## gas concentration of 0.002 ppm. Thes e 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 volu mes of these two gases th at are liberated from the electro chemical process within the RBT reactor.

These tests were run concurrently with the fish chronic toxicity tests de scribed 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 terminat ed. 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. De tails on the gas detection equipm ent 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 fo r 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 m 3 

## ), refill them to their full capacity (200 m 3 

## ) with natural seawater treated with the RBT reactor, immediately drain th e tanks to one third of their volume, and then refill them to maximum capacity with freshly treat ed natural seawater. The process of draining and refilling the ballast tanks required approxima tely 2 to 3 hours to complete. Assuming 100% mixing efficiency in the tanks (which is not un reasonable) the volume of water in the simulation ballast tanks comprised 88.9% newl y treated ballast water.

Average, maximum and mini mum concentrations of Cl 2 

## gas were 0.24 ppm, 0.25 ppm and 0.07 ppm over this 10 day period. Aver age maximum and minimum hydrogen gas concentrations were 0.15%, 0.28% and 0.0% ove r the 10-day testing pe riod (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 c ould 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 tota l of eight local marine and or estuarine species were conducted using seawater treated with th e 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 (LC 50 

## = 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 urch in fertilization test. Since TRO concentrations

were below the detection limits for the sea urch in 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 fo r the sea urchin toxicity test,

with concentrations of 2.7 μ g/l (bromoform) and 1.4 μ g/l (dibromoacetic acid) in the NOEC of 50% treated ballast water (TBW). The maximu m 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 NOEC bromoform 

## = 2.9 mg/l, PNEC bromoform 

## = 0.29 mg/l,

PNEC dibromoacetic acid 

## = 6.9 μ g/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 toxi city was noted for three groups of organisms at levels above 160 μg/L bromoform). The predicted no effects concentration (PNEC) for bromoform, dibromo acetic 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 obser ved 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 s ea urchin fertilization test. The PNECs were thus

calculated as follows:

Thus,

PNEC TBW 

## = 50%/10 = 5.0%

PNEC bromoform 

## = 2.7 μ g/l /10 = 0.27 μ g/l

PNEC dibromoacetic acid 

## = 1.7 μ g/l /10 = 0.17 μ g/l

PNEC TRO 

## = 0.12 mg/l/10 = 0.012 mg/l

The PEC/PNEC ratios for harbour water and su rrounding 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 μ g/l) Ballast discharge of average

bromoform concentration (8.13 μ g/l) Harbour Surrounding Harbour Surrounding PEC ( μ g/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 μ g/l) Ballast discharge of average DBAA concentration (3.17 μ g/l) Harbour Surrounding Harbour Surrounding PEC ( μ g/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 ( μ g/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 da ta instead of chronic

data it was decided to also determine PE C/PNEC ratios if asse ssment factors of 100 and 1000 were applied. The PNEC for TR O applying an AF of 100 is 1.2 μ g/l which results in a PEC/PNEC ratio of 0.1125. Applying an asse ssment factor of 1000 results in a PNEC

of 0.12 μ g/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 s cenario. In order to achieve a PNEC for treated ballast water of 5.0%, this would require a dilution fact or of 20 in the harbour envir onment. (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 volu me of ballast water di scharged per day into Rotterdam Harbour (95, 172.4 m 3 

## , Port of Rotterdam (2008)), and assuming unifor m 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 wate r (defined as perc entage whole effluent released after RBT treatment process). The concen tration 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 thres hold value of 1, which suggests that treatment or diluti on of ballast water before disc harge 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 th e sea urchin toxicity test was conducted using ballast water that was at least 21⁄2 hours old, in which TRO concentra tions 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 fo r a minimum of 21⁄2 hours before release.

Table 25: OECD default “commercial harbou r” scenario based on Rotterdam harbour

Harbour Length (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Volume (m 3 

## ) Flush

rate

OECD “Commercial Harbour” (Rotterdam) 10000 2000 20 400 x 10 6 

## 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 waterin harbour environment (%)



## Figure 20: Concentration of treated balla st water in OECD “commercial harbour” environment, assuming steady state ballast discharge of 95172 m 3 

## /day,

harbour volume of 400 x 10 6 

## m 3 

## and flush rate of 0.65

PEC/PNEC ratios were also determined for i ndividual 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 dibromoacet ic 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 th e RBT reactor poses no risk to the aquatic

environment or to human health. Predicted envi ronmental concentrations of Active Substances

and Relevant Chemicals are well below reco mmended WHO guidelines fo r drinking and bathing water, and are well below predicted no effect concentrations for the most sensitive aquatic organism. It must however be not ed that PEC/PNEC ratios were ca lculated using the results from the sea urchin toxicity test in which balla st 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 s uggested 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 μ g/l), and thus holding ba llast water for this period would provide a further safe guard ag ainst exposure of organisms to oxidants.

8 LITERATURE CITED IN THIS APPLICATION

1 a) Marine Environment Protection Co mmittee, 2006. Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water: Basic Approval of Ac tive Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by Japan. 55th session, age nda item 2, 12 April 2006.

b) Marine Environment Protection Comm ittee, 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. Ad vanced 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 wa ter: 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. Mechan isms 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 developmenta l 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., Je nsen, J.N., Lewis, D.P. and Neuhauser,

E.F.1997. Combined use of heat and oxidan ts 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 Olle vier, 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.worksafesa sk.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 ph ysical 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 combin ed gestational and postn atal exposure to Ozone. Archives of Toxicology . 69 (9), 608-616.

14 Boorman, G.A. 1994. NTP Technical Report on th e 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. Techni cal 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 chlori ne 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: Toxi city to oyster larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin . 10 (6): 166-169.

19 Hutchinson, T.H., Hutchings, M.J. and M oore, 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 Ri sk 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 an d decay of total residua l 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 Parris h, P.R. 1981. Acute toxici ty 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 C ontamination 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 Br omoform 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.pesticid einfo.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 Dis ease Registry. 2005. Toxi cological 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 Eur opean marine sites. WRC Swindon, Wiltshire.

31 Melnick, R.L. 1989. NTP Technical Report on the toxicology and carcin ogenesis -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 fo r Bromoform. Prepared for Oak Ridge

Reservation Environmenta l 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 trihalom ethanes: 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 De partment of the Interior Fish and Wildlife

Service. Resource Publication 192. Washington D.C.

39 Chien, Y. and Chou, Y. 1989. The effects of re sidual chlorine, temper atures 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. Eff ects of chlorinated effluents on aquatic ecosystem in the lower James River. Journal of the Water Po llution Control Federation

. 49: 639-64

41 Kaniewska-Prus, M. 1982. The effect of ammo nia, chlorine and chlo ramines 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. Ef fect 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 Chlorinati on, Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Volume 2: Proceedings of the second confer ence on the Environmental Impact of water chlorination, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 31-November 4, 1977. 341-350.

45 Office of pesticide programs , 2000. Pesticide Ecotoxicity Data base. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U.S. EPA, Wa shington D.C. in Kegley, S., Hill, B. and Orme, S. PAN Pesticide
Database, Pesticide Action Network, North Am erica (San Francisco, CA. 2007). http:www.pesticideinfo.org. © 2000-2007 Pesticide Ac tion Network, North America. All rights

reserved.

46 Capuzzo, J.M. 1979. The effect of temperatur e 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 a nd health assessment of substances in household detergents and cosmetic detergent products. Danish Envi ronmental 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 a nd Chemistry (SETAC), 2004. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing. SETACTIP : Technical issue paper.

53 Endresen, O., Behrens, H. L., Brynesta d, 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 di sinfectants. Research & Development Centre, Saline Water Conversion Corporation. Tec hnical Report No. TR: 3803/APP 95003. Al-Jubail,

Saudi Arabia.

55 (EPA/600/R-01/110) Modeling Chlorine D ecay and the Formation of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) in Drinking Water, In: Controlling Disinfec tion By-Products and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Wate r (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, Dinne l PA, Gensemer RW, Stbblefield WA, Ruiz GM, Kopp JA, House ML and Co oper 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 Be nfey 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 a nd 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 E guchi 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 o ccurence: a review. National Re search Council Canada. Report

NRCC-44499.

62 OECD (2005) OECD Emission scenario doc ument on anti-fouling products. Series on

emission scenario documents No.13. OECD envi ronmental 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 Organi zation. WHO Press, Geneva

64 WHO (2003) a 

## Guidelines for safe recreational water environments. Volume 1: coastal and fresh waters. World Health Orga nization. WHO Press, Geneva.

## MEPC 59/2/10

ANNEX Page 85

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

## 65 WHO (2003) b 

## Chlorine in Drinking Water. Bac kground document for the development of WHO guidelines for drinking water quality. Worl d 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 wa ter. Application for Final Appr oval of the OceanSaver Ballast Water Management System (OS BWMS), Subm itted by Norway. 58th session, agenda item 2,

19 March 2008. MEPC 58/2/1.

__________