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

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

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO 

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 

COMMITTEE 

59th session 

Agenda item 2 

MEPC 59/2/6

 12 December 2008

 Original: ENGLISH

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 

Application for Final Approval of the Greenship Sedinox Ballast Water Management System 

Submitted by the Netherlands 

SUMMARY

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

application for Final Approval of the Greenship Sedinox Ballast Water 

Management System (the system received Basic Approval at MEPC 58 

under the name of ìGreenshipís Ballast Water Management Systemî), 

as required by the ìProcedure for approval of ballast water management 

systems that make use of Active Substances (G9)î adopted by resolution 

MEPC.169(57) and in accordance with the ìMethodology for information 

gathering and the conduct of work of the GESAMP-BWWGî. The 

system consists of particle removal system followed by an electrolytic 

process using chloride ions in surface water. Relevant documents 

together with the application dossier have been submitted to the 

Marine Environment Division of the Organization for review by the 

GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group in accordance with the 

above-mentioned procedure. 

Strategic direction: 7.1 

High-level action: 7.1.2 

Planned output: 7.1.2.4 

Action to be taken: Paragraph 7 

Related documents: MEPC 53/24/Add.1, MEPC 55/2/16, MEPC 56/2/2, MEPC 57/2/7, 

MEPC 57/21 and MEPC 58/2/7 

Introduction 

1 Regulation D-3.2 of the International Convention for the Control and Management of 

Shipsí Ballast Water and Sediments stipulates that ballast water management systems that make 

use of Active Substances to comply with the Convention shall be approved by the Organization. 
MEPC 59/2/6 - 2 - 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

2 The ìProcedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of 

Active Substances (G9)î adopted by resolution MEPC.169(57) identifies the information to be 

documented by data or testing and basic principles for risk evaluation, which is further elaborated 

in the ìMethodology for information gathering and the conduct of work of the 

GESAMP-BWWGî (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4). According to section 6 of Procedure (G9), the 

Organization should evaluate the information provided in the application. 

3 According to BWM.2/Circ.15, applications for approval of ballast water management 

systems that make use of Active Substances are to be submitted to the Marine Environment 

Division of the Organization to be reviewed by the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group. 

In the meantime, a document on the proposal for approval containing all the non-confidential 

data related to the respective Active Substances needs to be submitted to the MEPC. 

4 The applicantís responses and actions to address the recommendations of the 

GESAMP-BWWG as presented in document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6, are provided in this dossier 

and are summarized in chapter 1.2 of the annex. 

5 The competent authority in the Netherlands has verified the application dossier prepared 

by the applicant and believes it satisfies the requirements of Procedure (G9) and the 

Methodology. 

6 The Netherlands therefore submits the applicantís dossier in the annex to this document 

for evaluation according to Procedure (G9). The complete dossier will be made available to the 

experts of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group. 

Action requested of the Committee 

7 The Committee is invited to consider the proposal for approval and decide as appropriate. 

*** 
MEPC 59/2/6 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

ANNEX 

NON-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ON THE GREENSHIP SEDINOX BALLAST 

WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (THE NETHERLANDS) 

This annex follows the requirements for application as presented in the Methodology for 

information gathering and the conduct of work of GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4) 

and has the following content: 

Annex: Non-confidential report

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Chapter 2: Description of the system and the production of Active Substance 

Chapter 3: Identification of Active Substance and relevant by-products, including application 

data sets and measurements of salinity, pH, TSS, DOC and POC 

Chapter 4: Material safety data sheets (MSDS) 

Chapter 5: Risk characterization 

Chapter 6: Risk assessment 

Chapter 7: Assessment report 

References 

Confidential appendices 

I. Operation and technical manuals of the ìSedinoxî BWMS 

II. Efficacy testing of the ìSedinoxî BWMS 

III. Analysis of Active Substance, relevant by-products, hydrogen and general 

parameters 

IV. Key data summary of Active Substance and relevant by-products (MEPC 58/2/7, 

annex 4, appendix 1) 

V. MSDSs of Active Substance and relevant by-products 

VI. Toxicity tests 

VII. Corrosion tests 

VIII. Data sheets on MAM-PEC results and Haskoning report, 2008 : Ballast water 

quantities Port of Rotterdam 

IX. Human risk assessment by EUSES 2.1, (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4, appendix 2) 

X. Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 2 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General 

The applicant proposes a ballast water management system (BWMS) that combines destruction 

and removal of biota, and removal of sediment at uptake of ballast water using a patented multi 

hydrocyclone technology followed by a mild disinfection step, using chloride ions in surface 

water in an electrolytic process to produce Active Substance for the killing of remaining 

micro-organisms (smaller then 20 mμ). This application is based on the Procedure for approval 

of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9). 

The GESAMP-BWWG recommended Basic Approval for this system (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6) 

and it was granted by the MEPC in October 2008. The applicant presents its responses to 

the GESAMP-BWWG review in chapter 1.2 of this document. One of the main comments of 

the GESAMP-BWWG was that the system needed refinement (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6, 

paragraph 2.1.9). The applicant has significantly refined the system without changing the 

principles of the treatment. The refinement consists of three main adjustments: (1), lowering the 

maximum dose concentration of Active Substance at uptake, (2) abolishment of the disinfection 

at ballast water discharge and (3) installing on-line continuous monitoring of Active Substance 

during uptake with continuous feed back to the electrolytic cells to maintain a maximum subs. 

minimum dose concentration of Active Substance. 

The BWMS is capable of removing biota and particles of > 20 μm from water with an efficiency 

of 100 % and particles of > 10 μm with an efficiency of > 80 %. This treated water is 

subsequently disinfected by Active Substance generated in an electrolytic cell. Upon completion 

of treatment the ballast water complies with the discharge standard of regulation D-2 of the 

International Convention for the Control and Management of Shipsí Ballast Water and 

Sediments. The capacity of the BWMS is modular: it can handle ballast water flows ranging 

from 100 m3

/hr up to 5,000 m3/hr and even more. 

The electrolytic process produces Free Active Chlorine (FAC) from chloride ions present in 

natural surface water on board. FAC is widely applied for the disinfection of water. The major 

advantage of this type of electrolytic cell is the long lasting coating. The electrolytic cells can 

disinfect with a minimum of maintenance (a once a year cleaning is all that is required) for the 

duration of approximately 5 years. 

This applicant believes that the BWMS is a safe and economical system for ships and crews 

applicable without the storage of chemicals on board. Water chlorination is a safe and reliable 

disinfection procedure used worldwide for drinking water production, in industry and as biocide 

in cooling water systems to prevent bio-fouling, e.g., in electrical power generation. 

This document presents all required information according to the revised Procedure (G9) adopted 

by resolution MEPC.169(57). It contains all scientific data on Active Substance and relevant byproducts and reports all results of chemical and ecotoxicological tests. A quality assurance 

project plan (QAPP) was in place from the start of the tests. It is presented in appendix X. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 3 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

1.2 The applicantís response to the GESAMP-BWWG review of the application 

for Basic Approval (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6) 

Summary (all paragraph numbers referred in this section are those of document 

MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6) 

0.1 This BWMS does not use a filtration system; it uses multi hydrocyclone technology to 

destruct and remove biota and remove suspended solids with a size of > 20 μm with an efficiency 

of 100% and with a size of > 10 μm with an efficiency of > 80%. 

0.5 This application contains a quantified risk characterization for human health using 

EUSES 2.1 (see chapter 6.2 and appendix IX). 

0.6.2 See 0.5. 

0.6.3 The organic content of the water of tests for Final Approval is reported in chapter 3.2 and 

appendix III. 

0.6.4 The level of quantification (LOQ) for haloacetic acids during the tests for Final Approval 

was 1 μg/l in natural surface water. In the Netherlands no laboratory could be found with better 

performance (see chapter 3.3 and appendix III). See also chapter 7.4. 

Completeness of dossier 

2.1 (See MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6) 

2.1.1.1 The applicant has provided the complete system lay-out in appendix I. 

2.1.1.2 Protection devices and failsafe controls: see appendix I. 

2.1.1.3 Details of the treatment: see chapter 2 and appendix I. 

2.1.1.4 Maximum dose concentration: the proposed maximum dose concentration is 1 ppm 

(see for details chapters 2 and 3.2 and appendices I and III). 

2.1.1.5 Maximum allowable discharge concentration: the proposed maximum allowable 

discharge concentration is < 0.01 ppm (see for details chapters 2 and 3.3 and appendix III). 

2.1.1.6 Means of determining and controlling dose rates: see chapter 2 and appendix I. 

2.1.2 The concentrations of Active Substance and by-products at the point of discharge is 

reported in chapter 3.3. 

Note: It should be noted, that Greenship has abolished the second disinfection step at discharge, 

since treatment at uptake results in full compliance to the efficacy criteria of the Convention. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 4 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

2.1.3 See for the quantification of THMs and HAAs in natural surface water chapter 3.3. 

2.1.4 See for a complete description of monitoring and control systems chapter 2 and 

appendix I. 

2.1.5 See for hydrogen measurements chapter 6.1 and appendix III. 

2.1.6 See for a complete description of the corrosive effects chapter 6.1 and appendix VII. 

2.1.7 Risks associated with by-products are reported in chapters 5 and 6 and appendices IV, V, 

VIII and IX. 

2.1.8 The BWMS has been significantly refined. The maximum dose concentration of FAC 

has been reduced and the treatment at discharge abolished. A system for on-line dose control and 

failsafe controls has been installed. See for details in chapter 2 and appendix I. Outcomes on 

PEC/PNEC ratio calculations are reported in chapter 6.3 and appendix VIII; measurements of 

FAC in the plume of the discharge of treated ballast water, immediately after uptake and 

treatment, are reported in chapter 6.3 and appendix III to illustrate the absence of the risk of 

short-term exposure. Under normal operating conditions, ballast water will not be discharged 

immediately after uptake and treatment. 

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PRODUCTION OF ACTIVE 

SUBSTANCE 

2.1 The principles of the ìSedinoxî BWMS 

The ìSedinoxî BWMS is a total solution to the prevention of the distribution of aquatic species 

from one ecosystem to another ecosystem elsewhere on the globe and thus prevents the 

introduction of alien species into an environment that cannot cope with it. It not only prevents 

such distribution, but it also prevents the settlement of significant amounts of suspended solids in 

ballast water tanks during the journey and will thus contribute to a better economy of cargo 

transport over seas by increasing load capacity and decreasing ballast water tank cleaning costs 

and corrosion damage (see letter of Holwerda Ship management BV, appendix VII and 

chapter 6.1). 

The ìSedinoxî BWMS consists of two consecutive steps: 

2.1.1 Destruction and removal of biota and removal of suspended solids 

The ìSedimentorî, a patented multi hydrocyclone technology, destructs and removes biota and 

bigger particles during ballast water uptake. The Sedimentor works through a combination of 

pressure built-up and high G-forces. It removes 100% of the biota and particles of a size 

of > 20 μm and bigger and 80% of the particles of ≥10 μm (see figure 1). An underflow, 

enriched with bigger particles, is pumped over board at the location of ballast water uptake. The 

overflow is pumped via disinfecting electrolytic cells to the ballast water tanks. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 5 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Figure 1: Separation curve for the Sedimentor (7 experiments) 

A schematic drawing of the Sedimentor is presented in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Schematic drawing of the Sedimentor (one unit) 

2.1.2 Disinfection with Active Substance 

Active Substance for disinfection is produced from chloride in surface water with the 

ìTermanoxî electrolytic cell. The cell produces Free Active Chlorine (FAC), that is highly 

efficient in killing remaining micro-organisms, in particular algae and bacteria. Since biota and 

suspended solids with adsorbed organic carbon material are removed to a great extent by the 

multi hydrocyclone, a very mild disinfection step suffices to reach the efficacy criteria of the 

Convention (see paragraph 2.3). The FAC production inside a cell depends on chloride 

concentrations in the surface water and the settings of the cell. In practice, brackish and salt 

water is pumped via two cells at uptake; in fresh water a third cell needs to be added in order to 

produce the needed dose for disinfection (see for details in Appendix 1). The range of values that 

can be measured with the online sensor in treated natural surface water, situated at a distance 

of 10 x D (pipe diameter) after the cells (figure 3), is 0.01 ñ 2.0 ppm. This online sensor adjusts 

FAC production at a continuous constant level of maximum 1.00 ppm. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 6 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Figure 3: Appendage Pipe for measuring & control FAC (fit for sampling purpose as well), 

refer to Guidelines (G2). 

Figures 4 and 5 show the external and internal features of the Termanox (see details in 

appendix I). 

Figure 4: Outside view of the ìTermanoxî 

Figure 5: Inside view of the ìTermanoxî 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 7 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

2.1.3 Modular build-up of the ìSedinoxî 

The capacity of the ìSedinoxî BWMS is modular. One unit can handle 100 m3/hr but capacity 

can be enlarged by installing in parallel the number of units needed to achieve the desired 

capacity up to volumes of 5000 m3/hr (basically unlimited). Figure 6 shows a schematic drawing 

of a 300 m3

/hr system. 

Figure 6: Modular build-up of the ìSedinoxî 

2.1.4 Monitoring and control equipment 

The applicant BWMS is equipped with a number of measuring points to measure a variety of 

parameters like pressure, flow, NaCl, FAC, temperature, etc. The data coming from these 

measuring points are entered into the M&C unit (Figure 8) of the system that manages and 

controls the power unit and the valves in order to have a save and correct operation of the system. 

And if needed, in case of malfunction to close the system or parts thereof down. The system also 

incorporates control equipment, which automatically and continuously monitors and adjusts 

necessary electrolytic Amperages of the Termanox units during operation. One visual alarm is 

for the operation of the electrolytic cells. The maximum allowable dose concentration of the 

ìSedinoxî BWMS is regulated through continuous monitoring of the FAC concentration in the 

system itself during uptake of ballast water. A FAC monitoring unit is registering FAC and pH 

concentration and water temperature. The sensor is able to measure FAC in the range 

of 0.01 ñ 2.00 ppm. In practice a minimum of 0.1 ppm and a maximum value of 1 ppm for FAC 

will be preset in the control unit for alarm purposes. The control equipment stores data for 

at least 24 months and can display or print records for official inspection. The control equipment 

is MED approved. Figure 7 shows the touch screen (mimic) of the monitoring and control 

equipment. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 8 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

 Figure 7: Touch screen (mimic) of the 

 control and monitoring equipment 

2.2 Operation of the ìSedinoxî BWMS 

Appendix I presents all details of the system layout and the operation of the Sedinox as required 

in the review for Basic Approval by the GESAMP-BWWG. The protection devices and failsafe 

controls are described in appendix I, technical manual at pages 49 to 54. The two components of 

the Sedinox have no moving parts. Safety controls are incorporated for a number of parameters: 

pressure, flow and maximum-minimum allowable dose concentration of FAC (see technical 

manual in Appendix I). This is all proven and standard technology used in all kinds of industries 

and in the public domain (e.g., on board of ships). 

2.3 Efficacy testing of the ìSedinoxî BWMS

In the application for Basic Approval, efficacy testing was reported for five tests (see chapter 2.3.2 

of MEPC 57/2/7). The original report is presented again in appendix II-1. FAC concentrations 

of 1.5 ppm were reported to produce the required killing rates. In October and November 2007, 

three ship board efficacy test runs were performed. Initially more specifically to get a good view 

on the influence of the amount of total organic content (TOC.) on the production of FAC these 

tests were done with a fixed power setting on the Termanox. The results are presented in 

appendices II-2, II-3 and II-4. The average FAC concentration during sampling in test 1 was 1.1 ppm; 

in test 2 it was 0.6 ppm and in test 3 it was 2.9 ppm. An additional test was done, this time 

maintaining a low fixed FAC level by automatically varying the power level on the Termanox, 

on 26 June 2008 with a very low FAC concentration: 0.1 ppm. This test showed that even with 

such low concentrations the efficacy criteria are met (see appendix II-5). 

3 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVE SUBSTANCE AND RELEVANT BY-PRODUCTS, 

INCUDING DATA SETS, AND MEASUREMENTS OF SALINITY, pH, TSS, TOC, 

DOC AND POC 

3.1 General 

The production of FAC by electrolysis from chlorides in natural waters leads to the formation of 

halogenated by-products, like halogenated alifates, chloroamines and halogenated acetic acids. 

The applicant has tested the formation of such by-products during land-based tests of a full-scale 

BWMS with natural surface water. The results are the basis for the selection of relevant 

chemicals to provide data sets and risk characterization according the requirements of sections 4 

and 5 of Procedure (G9). 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 9 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

A BWMS with a capacity of 100 m3/hr was installed on board of a moored ship. This equipment 

had been tested already for 2 years on board of MV ìElizabethî (see also par. 6.1 and 

appendices II and VII). It was the same equipment as used in 2007 for G8 land-based efficacy 

tests and the tests for the Basic Approval application (see MEPC 57/2/7). Figure 8 shows the 

unit for the ship board tests in the engine room of MV ìElizabethî. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 10 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

The BWMS treated two types of surface water and the treated ballast water was stored in a 

storage tank during 2 days. In August 2008 brackish water from the harbour of Harlingen, 

the Netherlands, at the border of the Waddensea (test location 1), was treated and stored. 

In September 2008 fresh water from the ìvan Harinxma Channelî, just after the sea-locks 

of Harlingen harbour (test location 2), was treated and stored. Samples for chemical analysis and 

toxicity evaluation (see paragraph 5.2) were taken at different time intervals after treatment and 

distributed to different specialized laboratories with full accreditation. Control samples consisted 

of untreated natural surface water. Figure 9 shows test locations 1 and 2 in Harlingen, 

the Netherlands.

3.2 Two types of water: brackish and fresh 

The tests for Final Approval were done in two different types of natural surface water: brackish 

and fresh as prescribed in the Methodology (see MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4, paragraph 10.2.5). 

These types of water are not specified in Procedure (G9), neither is referred to Guidelines (G8) in 

which two types of water are defined with regard to salinity, TSS and TOC/POC/DOC content. 

Tables 1 and 2 present the characteristics of type I and type II water. Samples were taken from 

the harbour and the channel (source water). 

Table 1: Characteristics of type I water (brackish) 

Oxygen 

% 

Temperature, 

Co 

Salinity 

â 

 pH TSS, mg/l DOC, 

mg/l 

POC, 

mg/l 

TOC, 

mg/l 

 91.7 19.3 18.8 7.93 15 8.5 - 7.5 

N.B.: TOC is lower then DOC. Theoretically this is not possible, because DOC is part of TOC. 

Explanation of the minor difference is a measurement inaccuracy (see also appendix III). 

Table 2: Characteristics of type II water (fresh) 

Oxygen 

% 

Temperature, 

Co 

Salinity 

â 

 pH TSS, mg/l DOC, 

mg/l 

POC, 

mg/l 

 TOC, 

mg/l 

 94.3 16.2 2.8 7.84 9.9 14 1.0 15 

See for details of the analytical methodology and results: appendix III 

3.3 Identification of Active Substance and relevant by-products 

3.3.1 Free Active Chlorine (FAC) 

FAC was analyzed by Omegam-Water, Wognum, the Netherlands. The analyses were performed 

with the same sensor as used for the on-line measurements during treatment of ballast water 

(see chapter 2). The sensor was calibrated by Omegam-Water using the method according to 

NEN/EN/ISO 7393-2. Results are reported for control samples (source water) and samples taken 

from the stored treated ballast water at different time intervals: immediately after treatment 

(T=0), after 30 min (T=0.5), 1 hrs (T=1), 2 hours (T=2), 4 hrs (T=4), 12 hrs (T=12) and 48 hrs 

(T=48). Tables 3 and 4 present the results for the two types of water. The dose rates of FAC, 

measured on line immediately after the cells, were 1.0 ppm for brackish water and 0.38 ppm for 

fresh water. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 11 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Table 3: Concentrations of FAC in mg/l in type I treated water (brackish) 

Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

 <0.01 1.0 0.4 0.1 <0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 

Table 4: Concentrations of FAC in mg/l in type II treated water (fresh) 

Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

 <0.01 0.38 0.2 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 

See for details of the analytical methodology and results: chapter 2, appendix III and for the FAC 

data set: appendix IV. 

3.3.2 Halogenated organic compounds 

Halogenated organic compounds were analyzed by Omegam-Laboratoria, Amsterdam, the 

Netherlands. The analyses were performed according to NEN/EN/ISO 15680. Results are 

reported for control samples (source water) and samples taken from the stored treated ballast 

water at different time intervals: immediately after treatment (T=0), after 30 min (T=0.5), 2 hrs 

(T=2), 4 hours (T=4), 12 hrs (T=12) and 48 hrs (T=48). Tables 3 and 4 present the results for the 

two types of water. 

Table 5: Concentrations in μg/l of halogenated organic compounds in type I treated water 

(brackish) 

 Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

dichloromethane <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 

1,1-dichloroethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

1,2-dichloroethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

trans-1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

cis-1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

1,2-dichloropropane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

trichloromethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

tetrachloromethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

1,1,1-trichloroethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

1,1,2-trichloroethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

trichloroethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

tetrachloroethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

tribromomethane <0.5 47 70 80 73 82 84 

sum C/T dichloroethene 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

sum chloroaliates 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 

Volatile chlorinated aliphates - remainder: 

dibromomethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

bromodichloromethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

dibromochloromethane <0.5 3.8 5.2 5.9 5.4 6 6.3 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 12 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Table 6: Concentrations in μg/l of halogenated organic compounds in type II treated water 

(fresh) 

 Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

dichloromethane <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 

1,1-dichloroethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

1,2-dichloroethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

trans-1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

cis-1,2-dichloroethene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

1,2-dichloropropane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

trichloromethane <0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 

tetrachloromethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

1,1,1-trichloroethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

1,1,2-trichloroethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

trichloroethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

tetrachloroethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

tribromomethane <0.5 11 14 15 15 16 16 

sum C/T dichloroethene 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

sum chloroaliates 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 

Volatile chlorinated aliphates - remainder: 

dibromomethane <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 

bromodichloromethane <0.5 2.6 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.9 

dibromochloromethane <0.5 9.9 13 13 14 15 16 

See for details of the analytical methodology and results: appendix III. For the data sets of 

tribromomethane (bromoform), dibromochloromethane and dichlorobromomethane: 

appendix IV. 

3.3.3 Haloacetic acids and chloroamines 

Haloacetic acids and chloroamines were analyzed by RPS Analyse BV, Breda, the Netherlands. 

The analyses of haloacetic acids were performed by GC-MS. Results are reported for control 

samples (source water) and samples taken from the stored treated ballast water at different time 

intervals: immediately after treatment (T=0), after 30 min (T=0.5), 2 hrs (T=2), 4 hours (T=4), 

12 hrs (T=12) and 48 hrs (T=48). Tables 7 and 8 present the results for the two types of water. 

The analyses for chloroamines were performed by titration. Chloroamines were not detected in 

both types of treated surface water (detection limit: 0.1 mg/l). 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 13 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Table 7: Concentrations in mg/l of chloroamines and in μg/l of halogenated acetic acids in 

type I treated water (brackish) 

 Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

monochloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

dichloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

trichloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

chloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

dichloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

bromoacetic acid <1 24 72 77 59 86 5.8 

trichloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

dibromoacetic acid <1 40 76 64 47 69 3.6 

bromochloroacetic acid <1 4.1 6.7 5.8 4.5 6.2 <1 

bromodichloroacetic acid <1 2.2 3,2 2.3 2.4 3.1 2.8 

dibromochloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

tribromoacetic acid <1 9.9 14 12 12 13 12 

Table 8: Concentrations in mg/l of chloroamines and in μg/l of halogenated acetic acids in 

type II treated water (fresh) 

 Control T=0 T=0.5 T=2 T=4 T=12 T=48 

monochloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

dichloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

trichloroamine <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

chloroacetic acid <1 7 5.3 7.1 4.5 4.1 1.3 

dichloroacetic acid <1 5.1 5.5 5.4 3.8 3.6 6.4 

trichloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

bromoacetic acid <1 17 16 15 12 9.9 12 

dibromoacetic acid <1 39 40 40 31 32 30 

tribromoacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

bromochloroacetic acid <1 24 23 22 18 17 17 

dibromochloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

bromodichloroacetic acid <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

See for details of the analytical methodology and results: appendix III. For the data sets of 

chloroacetic acid, bromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, bromochloroacetic 

acid, bromodichloroacetic acid and tribromoacetic acid: appendix IV. 

4 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS) 

The MSDSs of FAC and all relevant by-products are presented in appendix V. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 14 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 

5.1 Screening for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity 

The criteria for evaluating long term persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity are given in 

section 6.1.4 of the Methodology. These criteria were applied on the Active Substance and the 

by-products found in the treated ballast water (see chapter 3). The results are presented in 

table 9. A similar table was presented in document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6, page 21. Some data 

is different, but references are given for verification. For 3 haloacetic acids toxicity data was not 

available. Data of dibromoacetic acid was used. 

Table 9: PBT evaluation 

Chemical Persistent 

(y/n) 

Bioaccumulative

(y/n) 

Toxic 

(y/n) 

Hypochlorous acid No 

1/2-Life: 0.058 days in 

water (Taylor, 1993) 

No 

Log Pow=-3.42 

No 

7d NOEC for unknown species, 

0.0027 mg/l (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6) 

Bromodichloromethane No 

1⁄2-Life: 0.08 days in water 

(EU-RAR Hypochlorite, 

par. 3.1.2) 

No 

LogPow= 1.88 

No 

Oryzias latipes NOEC= 

0.78 mg/l/21days 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7) 

Dibromochloromethane No 

1⁄2-Life: 0.11 days in water 

(EU-RAR Hypochlorite, 

par. 3.1.2) 

No 

Log Pow = 2.08 

No 

Daphnia magna NOEC = 

0.063 mg/l/21days (GLP) 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7)

Tribromomethane No 

1⁄2-Life: 0.30 days in water 

(EU-RAR Hypochlorite, 

par. 3.1.2) 

No 

Log Pow = 0.38 

No 

Cyprinodon variegates NOEC= 

4.8 mg/l/28 days 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6)

Dichloroacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life: 5.4 days in water 

(Hashimoto et al, 1998) 

No 

Log Pow = 0.92 

No 

Nitocra spinipes LC50= 23 mg/l/96 h 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7, 

original reference unknown) 

Bromochloroacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life: 2.7 days in water 

(Hashimoto et al, 1998) 

No 

Log Pow = 0.61 

No 

Pimephales promelas LC50= 

6.9 mg/l/96 h (Dibromoacetic acid) 

Dibromoacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life: 3.1 days in water 

(Hashimoto et al, 1998) 

No 

Log Pow = 1.22 

No 

Pimephales promelas LC50= 

6.9 mg/l/96 h (Mayes et al, 1985) 

Tribromoacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life: 0.04 days in water 

(Yuefeng Xie, 2004)

Spontaneous decomposition 

in water (EU-RAR 

Hypochlorite, par. 3.1.2) 

No 

Log Pow = 1.71 

No 

Pimephales promelas LC50= 

6.9 (mg/l/96 h) (Dibromoacetic acid)

Chloroacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life: 3.9 days in water 

(Hanson et al, 2002) 

No 

Log Pow = 0.22 

No 

Daphnia Magnia, 48 hr EC50= 77 

mg/l (US-EPA Ecotoxicology 

database, 2008)

Bromoacetic acid No 

1⁄2-Life:3.2 days in water 

(Hashimoto et al, 1998) 

No 

Log Pow = 0.295 

No 

Daphnia magna NOEC= 

1.6 mg/l/21days

(Kuhn, R. et al., 1989) 

Bromodichloroacetic 

acid 

No 

1⁄2-Life: 3.6 days in water 

(Hashimoto et al, 1998) 

No 

Log Pow =1.71 

(tribromoacetic acid)

No 

Pimephales promelas LC50= 

6.9 (mg/l/96 h) (Dibromoacetic acid)

Conclusion: None of the compounds should be classified as a PBT substance.
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 15 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.2 Toxicity evaluation of the treated ballast water 

In order to comply with the requirement in section 5.2 ìtoxicity testing of the treated ballast 

waterî of Procedure (G9), the applicant has commissioned the Institute for Marine Resources 

and Ecosystem Studies of Wageningen IMARES, Den Helder, the Netherlands, to perform the 

prescribed toxicity tests on whole effluent of the treated ballast water. Samples of two types of 

treated water were taken under the same technical conditions as samples taken for chemical 

analysis (see chapter 3 of this document). In this paragraph a summary of toxicity tests is given. 

The full report is presented in appendix VI. 

The residual effects of (brackish) sea water and freshwater treated with the Sedimentor and the 

electrolytic cell were investigated with bioassays, using three organisms: two algae 

(Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) and a crustacean 

(the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana). 

Two water types were tested: freshwater (salinity <5â) and brackish water (salinity <20â). 

The test species were adapted to the desired salinity regime prior to testing. 

Tests were performed directly after treatment and 48 hours after treatment and storage in a 

container. For each test dilutions of 10% 18%, 33%, 56% and 100% treated ballast water were 

made, using untreated ballast water (only hydrocyclone treated) as dilution medium and blank. 

Treated ballast water showed no negative effects in the tests with the brine shrimp. Treated 

ballast water caused a significant effect on both algal species. The freshwater species 

P. subcapitata appeared to be the most sensitive. Table 10 gives an overview of results for the 

algae tests (see for explanation of sample codes and sample characteristics: page 29, appendix A 

of appendix VI). In July tests in duplicate were done with treated ballast water immediately after 

uptake (sample codes 200807). In August and September tests were done immediately after 

uptake and after 48 hrs storage (sample codes 200808 and 200809). 

Table 10: Summary results of the algae tests 

Phaeodactylum tricornutum

Sample code NOEC 

(m/m%) 

LOEC 

(m/m%) 

EC50 

(m/m%)

2008070853b 

2008070853b 

2008082553 

2008082700 

Intake 

intake (duplo) 

intake 

discharge 

17.0 

17.0 

17.2 

30.2 

30.2 

30.2 

30.2 

53.7 

48.7 (47.6 - 49.7) 

44.0 (42.5 - 45.6) 

32.8 (30.3 - 35.4) 

>95.6 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata 

Sample code NOEC 

(m/m%) 

LOEC 

(m/m%) 

EC50 

(m/m%) 

2008070853f 

2008070853f 

2008091553 

2008091700

Intake 

Intake (duplo) 

Intake 

discharge

<9.3 

<9.3 

9.4 

29.6

9.3 

9.3 

16.6 

52.7 

16.9 (16.3 - 17.1) 

15.3 (13.3 - 17.5) 

20.3 (19.1 - 21.7) 

58.7 (51.0 - 67.6)

As can be concluded from the table on average a 6ñfold (P. tricormutum) to 20-fold dilution 

(P. subcapitata) is needed to reach NOEC. In some ballast water tests, a clear effect of volatile 

substances was observed in the blank wells that were added as control for volatile substances. 

This effect was observed in all tests with the freshwater algae P. subcapitata and in the Aug 26th 

test with the marine algae P. tricornutum. The effect was limited and did not affect the 

performance of the test. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 16 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.3 Risk characterization and analysis 

Prediction of discharge and environmental concentrations: MAM-PEC 

For the calculation of the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) the model MAM-PEC 

(version 2.0) was applied. This model is freely available and can be downloaded. The model has 

been developed by Delft Hydraulics (now DELTARES) and the Free University, Amsterdam. 

The model was developed to calculate leaching of anti-fouling from ships. It is based on the 

assumption that a permanent source of the pollutant is present in the harbour and calculates a 

steady state concentration of the pollutant. Calculations can be done for different harbours with 

different dimensions and ìsurroundingsî, which in practice mean the channel to which the 

harbour is connected. In this application a standard commercial harbour has been used with an 

exchange volume of 259,000,000 m3

 per tidal period of 12.4 hours. The daily volume of 

discharged treated ballast water and the concentration of the Active Substance and relevant 

chemicals are critical input data. According to an investigation by Haskoning, commissioned 

in 2008 by the authorities of the Port of Rotterdam, a realistic average value of ballast water 

discharge is 50,000 m3

 per day. 

For all MAM-PEC calculations the highest concentration from the time series of measurements, 

either brackish or fresh water, was used. See tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in chapter 3. This implies 

the worst case scenario, e.g., for FAC the maximum allowable dose concentration of 1 ppm was 

used, instead of the allowable discharge concentration (< 0.01 ppm). 

All input data and results of the MAM-PEC calculations and the Haskoning report are presented 

in appendix VIII. 

5.3.1 FAC 

Main input data for FAC is: 

Load: 50 kg/day (based on 50.000 m3

/day and maximum of 1.00 mg/l); 

Half life: 0.058 days in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for FAC a steady state situation (= PEC) in the harbour 

of 0.013 μg/l and of 0.002 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

In various documents, predicted no effect concentrations of FAC (PNEC) have been calculated 

with different outcomes. Annex 7 to document MEPC 56/2/2 (review by the GESAMP-BWWG 

of the application by Japan, MEPC 56/2), reports a value of 0.07 μg/l. Document MEPC 57/2/1 

(application by Korea) reports 8 μg/l. The GESAMP-BWWG used 0.27μg/l in document 

MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 17 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.3.2 Tribromomethane (bromoform) 

Main input data for tribromomethane is: 

Load: 4.2 kg/day (based on 50.000 m3

/day and maximum of 84 μg/l); 

Half life: 0.30 days in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for tribromomethane a steady state situation (= PEC) in the 

harbour of 0.004 μg/l and of 0.0009 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

In various documents, predicted no effect concentrations of tribromomethane (PNEC) have been 

calculated with different outcomes. Annex 7 to document MEPC 56/2/2 (review by 

the GESAMP-BWWG of the application by Japan, MEPC 56/2), reports a value of 7.1 μg/l. 

RIVM (2005) reports a value of 1.5 μg/l. The GESAMP-BWWG used 48μg/l in document 

MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6. 

5.3.3 Dibromochloromethane 

Main input data for dibromochloromethane is: 

Load: 0.8 kg/day (based on 50, 000 m3

/day and maximum of 16 μg/l); 

Half life: 0.11 days in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for dibromochloromethane a steady state situation (= PEC) in 

the harbour of 0.00036 μg/l and of 0.00008 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

In various documents, predicted no effect concentrations of dibromochloromethane (PNEC) have 

been calculated with different outcomes. Annex 7 to document MEPC 56/2/2 (review by 

the GESAMP-BWWG of the application by Japan, MEPC 56/2) reports a value of 27 μg/l. 

Document MEPC 57/2/6 presents 5.2 μg/l and document MEPC 58/2 presents 3 μg/l. 

5.3.4 Tribromoacetic acid 

Main input data for tribromoacetic acid is: 

Load: 0.7 kg/day (based on 50, 000 m3/day and maximum of 14 μg/l); 

Half life: 0.04 days in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for tribromoacetic acid a steady state situation ( = PEC) in the 

harbour of 0.0001 μg/l and of 0.00002 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

Document MEPC 58/2 reports a value of 10 μg/l. Document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7 

reports 6.9 μg/l. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 18 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.3.5 Dibromoacetic acid 

Main input data for 2, 2 dibromoacetic acid is: 

Load: 3.8 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 76 μg/l); 

Half life: 3.1 days in water (calculated). 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for 2,2 dibromoacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) in 

the harbour of 0.020 μg/l and of 0.0016 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

In various documents, the predicted no effect concentrations of 2,2 dibromoacetic acid (PNEC) 

have been derived with different outcomes. Annex 7 to document MEPC 56/2/2 (review by 

the GESAMP-BWWG of the application by Japan, MEPC56/2), reports a value of 6.9 μg/l. 

Document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7 reports 6.9 μg/l and document MEC 58/2 6.5 μg/l. 

5.3.6 Bromodichloromethane 

Main input data for bromodichloromethane is: 

Load: 0.245 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 4.9 μg/l); 

Half life: 0.08 day in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for bromodichloromethane a steady state situation (= PEC) in 

the harbour of 0.0008 μg/l and of 0.00017 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

The predicted no effect concentration of bromodichloromethane (PNEC) is 1.58 μg/l 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7). 

5.3.7 Bromoacetic acid 

Main input data for bromoacetic acid is: 

Load: 4.3 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 86 μg/l); 

Half life: 3.2 days in water (calculated). 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for bromoacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) in the 

harbour of 0.023 μg/l and of 0.0018 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

In various documents, predicted no effect concentrations of bromoacetic acid (PNEC) have been 

derived with different outcomes. Document MEPC 58/2 reports a value of 3.4 μg/l and document 

MEPC 57/2/6 reports even 2 different values: 1.6 μg/l and 0.12 μg/l. Document MEPC 58/2/7, 

annex 7 reports 2.8 μg/l. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 19 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.3.8 Chloroacetic acid 

Main input data for chloromoacetic acid is: 

Load: 0.355 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 7.1 μg/l). 

Half life: 3.9 day in water. 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for chloroacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) in the 

harbour of 0.002 μg/l and of 0.00015 in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

Document MEPC 58/2 reports a PNEC of 7.7 μg/l and 0.066 in MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7. 

5.3.9 Dichloroacetic acid 

Main input data for dichloroacetic acid is: 

Load: 0.320 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 6.4 μg/l) 

Half life: 5.4 days in water (calculated) 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for chloroacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) in the 

harbour of 0.0023 μg/l and of 0.0001 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

Document MEPC 58/2 reports a PNEC of 8.2 μg/l and the review of this application 

reports 23 μg/l (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7). 

5.3.10 Bromodichloroacetic acid 

Main input data for bromodichloroacetic acid is: 

Load: 0.160 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 3.2 μg/l); 

Half life: 3.6 days in water (calculated). 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for bromodichloroacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) 

in the harbour of 0.0006 μg/l and of 0.00006 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

No PNEC values were found for bromodichloroacetic acid or could be derived from 

toxicological data. Therefore, the PNEC values for tribromoacetic acid will be used. Document 

MEPC 58/2 reports a value of 10 μg/l. Document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7 reports 6.9 μg/l. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 20 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

5.3.11 Bromochloroacetic acid 

Main input data for bromochloroacetic acid is: 

Load: 1.2 kg/day (based on 50,000 m3

/day and maximum of 24 μg/l); 

Half life: 2.7 days in water (calculated). 

The MAM-PEC model calculates for bromochloroacetic acid a steady state situation (= PEC) in 

the harbour of 0.005 μg/l and of 0.0005 μg/l in the surroundings. 

Effects on aquatic organisms: predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC) 

Document MEPC 58/2 reports a PNEC of 7.7 μg/l. Document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7, reports a 

value of 0.07 μg/l. 

6 RISK ASSESSMENT 

6.1 Risk to safety of ship, including corrosion evaluation 

Corrosion 

The Sedimentor is made of a synthetic material, resulting in a lightweight construction and 

preventing corrosion within the system. The electrolytic cell itself, including connecting pipes, is 

fully protected by special coatings against corrosion. The ballast water tanks in principle are 

subject to corrosion, especially immediately after treatment. Ballast water tanks normally are 

coated against corrosion. This regular practice is expected to be sufficient for treated ballast 

water. The FAC produced by the BWMS will be present in low concentrations and disappears 

quickly (see chapter 3). The Sedinox BWMS has been used for two years on MV ìElizabethî 

and corrosion of ballast water tanks was monitored and inspected by Germanischer Lloyd. 

According to the shipowner no sign of any corrosion could be observed after two years (see for 

details appendix VII). 

Hydrogen measurements 

During electrolysis hydrogen gas (H2) is produced. Theoretically, the cell produces 0.0186 

mol H2 gas per ampere (A) per hour, which equals 7.5 g H2 per hour under standard operating 

with 200 A. With a flow in the cell of 100 m3

/hour, this results in a H2 gas concentration of less 

then 0.1 ppm. This is far below any dangerous concentration. This was confirmed by H2

measurements in the head space of the ballast water storage tank immediately after treatment. 

All results (brackish and fresh water treatment) were below detection (< 0.05 %v/v). For details: 

see appendix III. 

Other issues

Storage and handling of the Active Substances and Preparations (Procedure (G9), paragraph 7.1) 

is not an issue since FAC is produced in-situ. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) specifically 

used in order to avoid contact with the FAC is therefore not necessary. Neither is contact with 

or inhalation an issue. The BWMS will operate in the machine room of the ships using standard 

pumps. Neither the Sedimentor nor the Electrolytic cell produces any noise. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 21 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

6.2 Risk to human health 

Human Risk Assessment for potential risks to system operators, shipís crew and, at de-ballasting, 

the general public belongs to the application for Final Approval. Appendix IX presents the full 

report on calculations carried out with the model EUSES (version 2.1) to quantify these risks in 

terms of Margin of Safety (MOS) values compared with reference MOS values (MOSref). In this 

chapter the main results are presented. 

EUSES calculated MOS values and MOS/MOSref (MRR) values. These MRR values are 

tabulated in Table 11. If the MRR value is ≥ 1 a safety margin of at least 100 is obtained and the 

risk is considered acceptable. 

EUSES gives MRR values for each toxicological endpoint, if available, e.g., acute inhalation, 

acute dermal, acute total, repetitive dose inhalation, repetitive dose total, development inhalation, 

development total, etc. Only the lowest values (i.e. maximum risk values) are given in Table 11. 

Table 11: MRR (MOS/MOSref) values 

Substance MRR (MOS/MOSref) lowest value 

Operators and crew a

 General public b

FAC 502 6.31E+4 

Tribromomethane 36.1 4.71E+3 

Dibromochloromethane 6.49E+3 3.07E+5 

Bromodichloromethane 1.39E+4 2.94E+4 

Bromoacetic acid 3.22E+3 1.54E+5 

Chloroacetic acid 2.76E+5 4.70E+6 

Dibromoacetic acid 2.45E+6 6.49E+6 

Dichloroacetic acid 1.30E+5 2.92E+6 

Bromochloroacetic acid 2.57E+4 2.86E+6 

Bromodichloroacetic acid 3.58E+4 4.74E+5 

Tribromoacetic acid 1.06E+2 7.66E+4 

a

 Based on acute toxicity data 

b

 Based on repetitive dose and/or development toxicity data 

From the EUSES calculations (Table 11) it is clear that MRR values for operators, crew and the 

general public of all substances produced by the BWMS are much larger than 1. The highest risk 

(under unrealistic worst-case assumptions) is observed for tribromomethane, which still has a 

margin of safety of 3610 for operators and crew and a margin of safety of 4.71 x 105 for the 

general public after de-ballasting. Therefore, the results show that the BWMS of Greenship B.V. 

poses no risk to engine room/system operators, nor to the shipís crew or to the general public. 

6.3 Risk to the aquatic environment 

In order to assess the risk to the aquatic environment the PEC/PNEC ratio has been calculated for 

all compounds in table 12. PEC values have been calculated with MAM-PEC (see chapter 5.3). 

PNEC values have been derived from toxicity data (see table 9). Various PNEC values are 

reported by other applicants and GESAMP-BWWG (see chapter 5.3). 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 22 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Table 12: PEC/PNEC ratios 

Chemical PEC (Max) 

(mg/L) 

Toxicity 

(mg/L)

Factor Applied PNEC 

(mg/L) 

PEC/PNEC 

(Max) 

Hypochlorite 1.33E-05 2.7E-03 10 2.7E-04 4.9E-02 

Bromodichloromethane 8.47E-07 0.78 500 1.56E-03 5.4E-04 

Dibromochloromethane 3.62E-07 0.063 500 1.26E-04 2.9E-03 

Tribromomethane 4.04E-06 4.8 100 4.8E-02 0.8E-04 

Chloroacetic acid 2.03E-06 77 10,000 77E-04 2.6E-04 

Bromoacetic acid 2.30E-05 1.6 500 3.2E-03 0.7E-02

Dichloroacetic acid 2.33E-06 23 1,000 23E-03 0.1E-03 

Bromochloroacetic acid 5.71E-06 6.9 1000 6.9E-03 0.8E-03 

Dibromoacetic acid 2.00E-05 6.9 1,000 6.9E-03 0.3E-02 

Tribromoacetic acid 1.32E-07 6.9 1,000 6.9E-03 0.2E-04

Bromodichloroacetic acid 6.53E-07 6.9 1,000 6.9E-03 0.9E-04 

Conclusion: the PEC/PNEC ratios for Active Substance and all by-products are far below 1, even 

though a worst case scenario has been used: maximum allowable dose (FAC) and maximum 

concentration of by-products found in treated ballast water (see chapter 3). 

FAC measurements in the ballast water discharge plume 

In order to address the concern of the GESAMP-BWWG on short term exposure 

(see MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6, paragraph 2.1.9), extra measurements were done in the discharge 

plume of treated ballast water. The Sedinox equipment was operated for two hours at 100 m3/hr 

and regulated to produce the maximum allowable dosage concentration. The treated ballast 

water was discharged during treatment in the Harlingen harbour, subs. Van Harinxma Channel. 

FAC was measured in samples at various distances from the discharge point. Samples of surface 

water were taken at the depth of 1 m. FAC never exceeded background levels in any surface 

water sample. These results confirm the expectation that FAC is very rapidly degraded in surface 

water, like is the case in the discharge plumes of cooling systems of power stations 

(see RAR Hypochlorite, chapter 3.1.2.9). For details: see appendix III. 

7 ASSESSMENT REPORT 

7.1 Overview of data and endpoints 

Chapter 6 presents an overview of all critical data and endpoints used for the risk assessment 

(see also appendices IV, VI, VIII and IX). All data is science based and literature references are 

given. Monographs on individual compounds have been used among which a draft RAR for the 

Active Substance. The applicant has commissioned research on the Active Substance and 

relevant by-products by accredited commercial laboratories and University institutions in 

the Netherlands and Germany. Quality control protocols were at all times strictly followed 

(see appendix X: Quality Assurance Project Plan). Representatives of Lloydís Register have 

consequently witnessed critical tests in the laboratory and on land and have approved these. The 

applicant considers the quality of test reports ìstate of the artî. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 23 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

7.2 Risk assessment of ship, crew and the general public 

Ship 

Corrosion: see chapter 6.1 

Hydrogen: see chapter 6.1 

Crew and general public 

From the EUSES calculations (table 11) it is clear that MRR values for operators, crew and the 

general public of all substances produced by the BWMS are much larger than 1. The highest risk 

(under unrealistic worst-case assumptions) is observed for tribromomethane, which still has a 

margin of safety of 3610 for operators and crew and a margin of safety of 4.71 x 105 for the 

general public after de-ballasting. Therefore, the results show that the BWMS of Greenship B.V. 

poses no risk to engine room/system operators, nor to the shipís crew or to the general public. 

7.3 Risk assessment of the aquatic environment 

From table 12, it can be concluded, that all PEC/PNEC ratios are orders of magnitude below 1, 

using the highest concentrations of FAC and by-products found during treatment and/or storage 

during 2 days of treated ballast water. The highest PEC/PNEC ratio was found for FAC: 4.9E-02. 

Even this value will not occur during normal operation since no FAC could be detected in the 

treated, stored ballast water 4 hours after treatment (see table 3, chapter 3). The risk for the 

aquatic environment of this BWMS is negligible. This is the result of a number of steps to refine 

this BWMS. These included: (1) continuous on line regulation of the maximum allowable dose 

of FAC and continuous adjustment to various conditions of surface water with regard to chloride 

concentrations, TSS and organic carbon content; (2) decrease of the maximum allowable dose 

to 1 ppm; and (3) abolishment of treatment at discharge (as is the case in other systems: see 

documents MEPC 58/2 and MEPC 57/2/6). 

7.4 Uncertainties 

Different PNECs 

In various documents of other applicants and the reviews by the GESAMP-BWWG , almost for 

every compound more then 1 PNEC value is reported. This applicant has used the PNEC values 

for FAC, bromoform and dibromoacetic acid from the review of its Basic Approval application 

(MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6). For the other by-products PNECs were derived from the data sets (see 

appendix IV) as reported also in document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7 and in document MEPC 57/2/6. 

Half lifes 

In the literature varying values for the half life of FAC and the by-products can be found. In this 

application half lifes in water have been used and the references are given. Moreover, the 

application of half life data from literature seems rather theoretical or at least very much ìworst 

caseî, since no residual FAC could be detected in the discharge plumes of treated ballast water, 

even with treatment still ongoing (see paragraph 6.3). 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 24 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

Volume of discharge water 

In the various applications different values for the volumes of discharges of ballast water are 

used. The figure used in this application for the MAM-PEC calculations is 50, 000 m3, according 

to a recent report of the Rotterdam Port Authority (see appendix VIII). It should be kept in mind 

that MAM-PEC is a ìsteady stateî model, that assumes that there is a permanent source of a 

pollutant, in this case 50 kg hypochlorite each day in the same place, the year round. This is a 

worst case assumption any way, since the maximum allowable dose concentration was used for 

the risk calculations in the HES and for the aquatic environment. 

Types of water: TSS and DOC/POC/TOC content 

The tests for Final Approval were done in two different types of natural surface water: brackish 

and fresh (see chapter 3) as prescribed in the Methodology (see MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4, 

paragraph 10.2.5). These types of water are not specified in Procedure (G9), neither is referred 

to Guidelines (G8) in which two types of water are defined with regard to salinity, TSS and 

TOC/POC/DOC content. Since tests were performed in natural conditions, the TSS and organic 

carbon contents of the surface water are beyond control of the applicant, while salinity was not. 

Given the design of the ìSedinoxî BWMS, results will not be different with regard to the risk to 

the aquatic environment since the TSS and TOC are always low after multihydrocyclone 

treatment and hence there will be no difference. FAC concentrations are regulated on line and 

the maximum dose concentration will be kept at a constant level, regardless of TSS or 

TOC/DOC/POC content. Moreover, the margin of safety of the PEC/PNEC ratio for by-products 

is such, that also for these compounds no adverse effects will occur if higher concentrations will 

be produced as a result of higher concentrations of organic carbon content. 

Level of detection of haloacetic acids 

In the review of the Basic Approval application of this applicant, the GESAMP-BWWG 

expressed concern about the level of detection of the haloacetic acids: (MEPC 58/2/7, annex 6, 

paragraph 0.6.4). Unfortunately, the applicant could not find a laboratory with a better 

performance then 1 μg/l. Given the MRR: the applicant considers, that the application of Best 

Available Technique (BAT) in the Netherlands is satisfactory. 

Combination of Guidelines (G8) and Procedure (G9) for ecotoxicology 

Samples for the ecotoxicological tests as prescribed for Procedure (G9) for Final Approval were 

taken during full scale land-based tests in the summer of 2008 with the same equipment as used 

on board a ship for 2 years (see appendix VII) and as used for Guidelines (G8) test cycles performed 

in the summer of 2007 (see appendix II). The applicant considers this procedure in compliance 

with the Methodology as prescribed in document MEPC 58/2/7, annex 4, paragraph 6.2.2.1 and in 

compliance with Procedure (G9) as prescribed in document MEPC 57/21, annex 1, paragraph 5.2.3. 

However, paragraph 5.2.1.2 of Procedure (G9) prescribes that discharge testing should be done 

as part of the land-based type approval process, which seems not fully consistent with the other 

prescriptions. Since samples were taken from ballast water, treated by the same equipment used 

for all tests, the applicant considers that the methodology was followed properly. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 25 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

7.5 Compliance with the Convention 

The ìSedinoxî BWMS using FAC as Active Substance, is indeed in compliance with the 

Convention since all requirements of Procedure (G9) have been met. MSDSs are available for all 

relevant chemicals and no PBT substances are used or being produced during operation. All 

risks to the environment, the crew, and the general public are acceptable during normal operation 

as well as in case of emergency deballasting immediately after treatment since for all risk 

calculations the maximum allowable dose concentration was used. 

7.6 Risk management 

The applicant considers risks under normal operational conditions of this BWMS within the limits 

of the normal daily operation of any ship. The BWMS is a very robust device with little risk of 

failure. When switched off, e.g., under SOLAS, the BWMS immediately stops producing Active 

Substance. The BWMS has been in operation now already for 2 years on a ship and many tests have 

been performed. The performance of the BWMS has been fully satisfactory (see appendix VII). 

The concentration of the Active Substance is now controlled through the functioning of a FAC sensor 

(as used in swimming pools as well) built in the system for continuous on line measurements (see 

chapter 2 and appendix I) and continuous adjustment of the maximum allowable dose of 1 ppm 

during operation. The applicant is of the opinion that no further specific precautionary measures 

are needed (e.g., protective clothes, hand gloves, etc. etc.), other than are in place during normal 

operations on ships. In case treated ballast water will be discharged for emergency reasons 

immediately after or even during treatment, the risks will be as presented in this document, since 

calculations, e.g., for human risk are based on maximum dose concentration at uptake anyway. 

REFERENCES 

1. A.I.S.E., Technical Task Force Hypochlorite: benefits and safety aspects of hypochlorite, 

March 1997. 

2. Applegate, VC., Howell JH, Hall Jr. AE., Smith M.A., 1957. Toxicity of 4,346 

Chemicals to Larval Lampreys and Fishes. Spec.Sci.Rep.Fish.No.207, Fish Wildl.Serv. 

U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C.:157 p. 

3. ATSDR (2005) Toxicological profile for bromoform and dibromochloromethane. Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

4. Bethany, McRae M., Lapara M. Timothy, and Hozalski M. Raymond, 2004. 

ìBiodegradation of Haloacetic Acids by Bacterial Enrichment Cultures.î Chemosphere 55: 915-925. 

5. Cairns J. Jr., Niederlehner B.R. and Pratt J.R. (1990). Evaluation of joint toxicity of 

chlorine and ammonia to aquatic communities Aquatic Toxicology, 16(2), 87-100. 

6. CITI. 1992. Biodegradation and bioaccumulation data of existing chemicals based on the 

CSCL Japan.:Japan Chemical Industry Ecology-Toxicology and Information Centre. Chemicals 

Inspection and Testing Institute. 

7. Christian, M.S., York, R.G., Hoberman, A.M., Frazee, J., Fisher, L.C., Brown, W.R. and 

Creasy, D.M., 2002. Oral (drinking water) two-generation reproductive toxicity study of 

dibromoacetic acid (DBA) in rats. Int. J. Toxicol., 21(4): 237-276. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 26 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

8. Chu I, Villeneuve DC, Secours VE, et al., 1982b. Trihalomethanes: II. Reversibility of 

toxicological changes produced by chloroform, bromodichloromethane, chlorodibromomethane 

and bromoform in rats. J Environ Sci Health [B] 17:225-240. 

9. Chu I., Secours V.E., Marino I., and Villeneuve D.C. (1980). The acute toxicity of four 

trihalomethanes in male and female rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 5, 351-353. 

10. Christian MS et al., 2001. Oral (drinking water) developmental toxicity studies of 

bromodichloromethane in rats and rabbits. International Journal of Toxicology 20:225-237.

11. Cummings A.M. and Hedge J.M. (1998). Dibromoacetic acid does not adversely affect 

early pregnant rats, Reproductive Toxicology, 12(4), 445-448. 

12. Daniel FB, Robinson M, Condie LW, et al., 1990. Ninety-day oral toxicity study of 

chloral hydrate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Drug Chem Toxicol 13(2&3):135-154. 

13. Daniel F.B., Ringhand H.P., Robinson M., Stober J.A., Olson, G.R. and Page N.P. (1991). 

Comparative subchronic toxicity of chlorine and monochloramine in the B6C3F1 mouse. J. Am. 

Water Works Assoc., 83, 68-75. 

14. Distribution, sources, and stability of haloacetic acids in Tokyo Bay, Japan, Hashimoto S.,

Azuma T., Otsuki A. - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1998. 

15. Druckrey (1968) Clorinated drinking water, toxicity studies on seven generations of rats 

Food Cosmet Toxicol. 6(2),147-154. 

16. ECB (European Chemicals Bureau) IUCLID Dataset, 2005 for monochloroacetic acid 

http://ecb.jrc.it/esis 

17. ECB(European Chemicals Bureau), European Union Risk Assesment Report, 3rd priority 

list Vol. 52 Final report 2005 for monochloroacetic acid http://ecb.jrc.it/esis. 

18. ECOTOX, The ECOTOX (ECOTOXicology) database, U.S.EPA 

http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecotox_home.htm 

19. Eloranta, V., 1982. Effect of the Slimecide Fennosan F50 on Algal Growth in Different 

Test Media. Pap. Puu 3:129-135. 

20. Fujie K., Aoki T., Ito Y, and Maeda S. (1993). Sister-chromatid exchanges induced by 

trihalomethanes in rat erythroblastic cells and their suppression by crude catechin extracted from 

green tea. Mutat Res 300(3-4), 241-246. 

21. Galloway S.M., Bloom A.D., Resnick M., Margolin B.H., Nakamura F., Archer P., and Zeiger E. 

(1985). Development of a standard protocol for in vitro cytogenetic testing with Chinese hamster 

ovary cells: Comparison of results for 22 compounds in two laboratories. Environ Mutagen 7, 1-51. 

22. Gentile J.H., Cardin J., Johnson M., and Sosnowski S. (1976). Power plants, chlorine and 

estuaries, EPA-600/3-76-055, US NTIS PB 255957, US EPA, Narragansett:39. 

23. GESAMP (2002). The Revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure for Chemical 

Substances Carried by Ships, in: GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 64. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 27 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

24. Gibson C.I., Thatcher T.O., and Apts C.W. (1976). Some effects of temperature, chlorine 

and copper on the survival and growth of the coon stripe shrimp. p.88-92 in: Esch G.W. and 

Mc Farlane R.W., Thermal Ecology II Proc. 1975 Symp., U.S. Erda Rep. N. Conf-750 425. 

25. Giller S., Le-Curieux F., Erb F. and Marzin D. (1997). Comparative genotoxicity of 

halogenated acetic acids found in drinking water, Mutagenesis, 12(5), 321-328. 

26. Goodman L.R., Middaugh D.P., Hansen D.J., Higdon P.K. and Cripe G.M. (1983). Early 

Life-Stage Toxicity Test with Tidewater Silversides (Menidia peninsulae) and 

Chlorine-Produced Oxidants, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2(3), 337-342. 

27. Hanson M.L.; Sibley P.K.; Ellis D.A.; Mabury S.A.; Muir D.C.G.; Solomon K.R. (2002). 

Evaluation of monochloroacetic acid (MCA) degradation and toxicity to Lemna gibba, 

Myriophyllum spicatum, and Myriophyllum sibiricum in aquatic microcosms, Aquatic 

Toxicology, vol. 61, issues 3-4, p.251 ñ 273. 

28. Hashimoto S., Azuma T. and A. Otsoki, (1998). Distribution, sources and stability of 

haloacetic acids in Tokyo bay, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 

29. Hayashi M., Kishi M., Sofuni T., Ishidate M. Jr. (1988). Micronucleus tests in mice 

on 39 food additives and eight miscellaneous chemicals. Food Chem Toxicol. 26(6), 487-500. 

30. Heitmuller P.T., Hollister T.A. and Parrish P.R. (1981). Acute toxicity of 54 industrial 

chemicals to sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus).Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 

27(5), 596-604. 

31. Holmes, M., Suarez, J.D., Roberts, N.L., Mole, M.L., Murr, A.S. and Klinefelter, G.R., 

Dibromoacetic acid, a prevalent by-product of drinking water disinfection, compromises the 

synthesis of specific seminiferous tubule proteins following both in vivo and in vitro exposures, 

Journal of Andrology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp 878-890, 2001. 

32. IRIS, Integrated Risk Information System, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

33. IPCS 2000. Disinfectants and disinfectant by-products. Geneva, World Health 

Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 216). 

34. Kenneke JF, Weber EJ., 2003. Reductive dehalogenation of halomethanes in iron- and 

sulphate-reducing sediments. 1. Reactivity pattern analysis. Environ Sci Technol 37(4):713-720. 

35. Knasmuller, 1999. Genotoxic effects of heterocyclic aromatic amines in human derived 

hepatoma (HepG2) cells, Mutagenesis, Volume 14, Number 6, November 1999, pp. 533-540(8). 

36. Kuhn, R., Pattard, M., Pernak, K-D., Winter, A., 1989. Results of the Harmful Effects of 

Water Pollutants to Daphnia magna in the 21 Day Reproduction Test. Water Res. 23(4):501-510 

(OECDG Data File). 

37. LeBlanc G.A. (1980). Acute Toxicity of Priority Pollutants to Water Flea (Daphnia 

magna) Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 24(5), 684-691. 

38. Liden L., Buton D., Bonger L. and Holland A. (1980). Effects of chlorobrominated and 

chlorinated cooling waters on estuarine organisms. J. water Pollut. Cont. Fed. 52(1), 173-182. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 28 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

39. Linder R.E., Klinefelter G.R., Strader L.F., Suarez J.D. and Dyer C.J. (1994). Acute 

spermatogenic effects of bromoacetic acids, Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 22, 422-430. 

40. Loeb, HA., Kelly, WH., 1963. Acute Oral Toxicity of 1,496 Chemicals Force-red to 

Carp. U.S.Fish.Wildl.Serv., Sp.Sci.Rep. .Fish.No.471, Washington, D.C.:124 p. 

41. Mabey W., and Mill T. (1978). Critical review of hydrolysis of organic compounds in 

water under environmental conditions, J Phys Chem Ref Data 7,383-415. 

42. Mattice J.S., Tsai S C., Burch M.B., and Beauchamp J.J. (1981). Toxicity of 

Trihalomethanes to Common Carp Embryos, Trans. Am. Fish Soc. Vol/issue: 110:2. 

43. Mayes M.A., Blanchard F.A., Hopkins D.L. and Takahashi I.T. (1985). Static Acute 

Toxicity of Dibromonitrilopropionamide and selected degradation products to the Fathead 

Minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque), Environ. Toxicol Chem. 4 (6), 823-830. 

44. Meier J.R., Bull R.J., Stober J.A. and Cimino M.C. (1985). Evaluation of chemicals used 

for drinking water disinfection for production of chromosomal damage and sperm-head 

abnormalities in mice. Environ. Mutagen. 7, 201-211. 

45. Melnick RL, Kohn MC, Dunnick JK, et al. 1998. Regenerative hyperplasia is not 

required for liver tumor induction in female B6C3F1 mice exposed to trihalomethanes. Toxicol 

Appl Pharmacol 148(1):137-147. 

46. Moore T.C., De Angelo A.B., and Pegram R.A. (1994). Renue toxicity of 

bromodichloromethane and bromoform administered chronically to rats and mice in drinking 

water, Toxicologist, 14, 281. 

47. Morimoto K., and Koizumi A. (1983). Trihalomethanes induce sister chromatid exchanges 

in human lymphocytes in vitro and mouse bone marrow cells in vivo. Environ Res 32, 72-79. 

48. Nicholson, B.C., Dillon, P.J., Pavelic, P., 2002. Fate of disinfection by-products during 

aquifer storage and recovery. In: Dillon, P.J. (Ed.), Management of Aquifer Recharge for 

Sustainability Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial Recharge (ISAR4), 

Adelaide Sept 22-26, 2002. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN: 90 5809 527 4, pp. 155-160. 

49. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1988. Technical Report on the Toxicology and 

Carcinogenesis Studies of Tribromomethane (Bromoform) (CAS No. 75-25-2) in F344 rats and 

B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). NTP TR 350. 

50. NTP, 2003c. Testing status for dibromoacetic acid. CAS # 631-64-1. National Institutes 

of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

51. NTP, 1985. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of chlorodibromomethane 

(CAS No. 124-48-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F, mice (gavage studies). Technical report series 

No. 282. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program. NIH Publication 

No. 88-2538. 

52. NTP, 1985. Toxicology and carcinpogenesis studies of chlorodibromomethane 

(CAS No. 124-48-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Research Triangle Park, NC, 

US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program (NTP TR 282). 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 29 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

53. NTP, 1987. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of bromodichloromethane 

(CAS No. 75-27-4) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Research Triangle Park, NC, 

US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program (NTP TR 282). 

54. NTP, 1989. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of tribromomethane (bromoform) 

(CAS No. 75-25-2) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Technical report series 

no. 350. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, National Institute of Health, National Toxicology Program. NIH Publication No. 88-2805. 

55. NTP, 1992. National Toxicology Program Report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis 

studies of chlorinated and chloraminated water in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water 

studies). Research Triangle Park, NC, US Department of Health and Human Services, (NTP TR 392). 

56. NTP, 1989. RDGT 94009 (1998) Short Term Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of 

Tribromoacetic Acid (CAS No. 75-96-7) Administered in Drinking Water to Sprague-Dawley Rats. 

57. NTP, 2005. Toxicology and Carinogenesis Studies of Dibromoacetic acid (CAS No. 631-64-1) 

in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies), (NTP TR 537). 

58. Pashley, E.L., Birdsong, N.L., Bowman, K. and Pashley D.H. (1985). Cytotoxic effects 

of NaCOCl on vitla tissue, J. Endocr. 11 (12), 525-528. 

59. Pecher K, Hederlein SB, Schwarzenbach RP., 2002. Retention of polyhalogenated 

methanes by surfacebound Fe (II) in aqueous suspensions of iron oxides. Environ Sci Technol 

36(8):1734-1741. 

60. Potter CL, Chang LW, DeAngelo AB, et al. 1996. Effects of four trihalomethanes on 

DNA strand breaks, renal hyaline droplet formation, and serum testosterone in male F-344 rats. 

Cancer Lett 106:235-242. 

61. Rapson W.H., Nazar M.A., and Butsky W. (1980). Mutagenicity produced by aqueous 

chlorination of organic compounds. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 24,590-596. 

62. Risk assessment report for sodium hypochlorite, version January 2007, incl. annexes 2, 3 

and 4, provided by: Dipartimento di Ambiente e Connessa Prevenzione Primaria, Istituto 

Superiori di Sanita, Rome, Italy. 

63. RIVM report 601501016 (2005). Environmental Risk Limits for alcohols, glycols and 

some other relatively soluble and/or volatile compounds. 

64. Roberts M. and Gleeson R. (1978). Acute toxicity of bromchlorinated seawater to selected 

estuarine species with a comparison to chlorinated seawater toxicity. Marine Environmental

Research, 1, 19-30. 

65. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) for acetic acid, bromo-, 

THOMSON Micromedex http://csi.micromedex.com/fraMain.asp?Mnu=0. 

66. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) for acetic acid, dibromo-, 

02 2007 THOMSON Micromedex. 
MEPC 59/2/6 

ANNEX 

Page 30 

I:\MEPC\59\2-6.doc 

67. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) for acetic acid, chloro-, 

THOMSON Micromedex http://csi.micromedex.com/fraMain.asp?Mnu=0. 

68. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) for acetic acid, dichloro-, 

THOMSON Micromedex http://csi.micromedex.com/fraMain.asp?Mnu=0. 

69. RTECS (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) for methane, chlorodibromoTHOMSON Micromedex http://csi.micromedex.com/fraMain.asp?Mnu=0. 

70. Ruddick JA, Villeneuve DC, Chu I, et al., 1983. A teratological assessment of four 

trihalomethanes in the rat. Environ Sci Health B18:333-349. 

71. Sangster J. 1994. LOGKOW databank. Sangster Research Laboratory, Montreal, Quebec. 

72. Simmon V.F., Kauhanen K., and Tardiff R.G. (1977). Mutagenic activity of chemicals 

identified in drinking water. Dev Toxicol Environ Sci 2,249-258. 

73. Simmon V.F., and Tardiff R.G. (1978). The mutagenic activity of halogenated 

compounds found in chlorinated drinking water. In: Jolley RL, Gorchev H, Hamilton DH Jr, 

et al., eds. Water chlorination: Environmental impact and health effects. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: 

Ann ArborScience Publishers, Inc., 417-431. 

74. Taylor, P.A. (1993). An evaluation of the toxicity of various forms of chlorine to 

Ceriodaphnia dubia, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 925-930. 

75. Thatcher T.O. (1978). The relative sensitivity of pacific northwest fishes and 

invertebrates to chlorinated sea water, Proc.2d Conf.Water Chlorination, Environ.Impact and 

health effects, vol.2, Oct.31 to Nov.4 1977, Gatlinburgh, TN:341-350. 

76. Torkelson T. R. (1994). Halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Pattyís Industrial Hygiene and 

Toxicology, 4th ed., Vol. II, Part E, Toxicology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 4064-4068. 

77. Varma M.M., Ampy F.R., Verma K., Talbot W.W. (1988). In vitro mutagenicity of water 

contaminants in complex mixtures. J Appl Toxicol 8, 243-248. 

78. Ward G.S., Parrish P.R., Rigby R.A. (1981). Early life stage toxicity tests with a 

saltwater fish: effect of eight chemicals on survival, growth, and development of sheepshead 

minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus). J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 8,225-240. 

79. WHO, Brominated Acetic Acids in Drinking-water, background document for 

development of WHO guidelines for Drinking-water quality, 2004. 

80. WHO EHC216 (2000). Disinfectants and disinfectant by-products. Environmental 

Health Criteria 216, WHO. 

81. Yuefeng Xie, 2004. Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water, CRC Press. P.47.

_______________