I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 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.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO 

E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 

COMMITTEE 

56th session 

Agenda item 2 

MEPC 56/2/1

 15 December 2006

 Original: ENGLISH

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER 

Application for Final Approval of a ballast water management 

system using Active Substances 

Submitted by Norway 

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document contains an application for Final Approval of a 

ballast water management system under the Procedure for approval of 

ballast water management systems that make use of Active 

Substances (G9) adopted by resolution MEPC.126(53) 

Action to be taken: Paragraph 6 

Related documents: BWM/CONF/36, MEPC 53/24/Add.1 and BWM.2/Circ.6 

Introduction 

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

Ships’ 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. 

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

Substances (G9) contains the information that should be included into a proposal for approval 

(MEPC 53/24/Add.1, annex 4, paragraph 4.2.1) and provisions for risk characterization and 

analysis (MEPC 53/24/Add.1, annex 4, paragraph 5.3). According to section 6 of the 

Procedure (G9) the Organization should evaluate the information provided in the application. 

3 According to BWM.2/Circ.6, a document on the proposal for approval containing all the 

non-confidential data related to the respective Active Substances shall be submitted to MEPC 56. 

4 The competent authority in Norway has verified the application dossier and believes it 

satisfy the data requirements of the Procedure (G9) adopted by resolution MEPC.126(53). 

5 Norway therefore submits the non-confidential part of the manufacturer’s application 

dossier in the annex of this document to the Organization for evaluation according to the 

Procedure (G9). The complete dossier will be made available to the experts of the 

GESAMP-BWWG with the understanding of confidential treatment. 

Action requested of the Committee 

6 The Committee is invited to consider the proposal for approval and to decide as 

appropriate. 

***

MEPC 56/2/1 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

ANNEX 

PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL ALFA LAVAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM - PUREBALLAST 

This report is structured in accordance with the headlines in the “Procedure for approval of 

Ballast Water Management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9)”. 

The documentation includes: 

• General report with process description and responses according to Procedure (G9). 

• Reference list for process description. 

Attachments: 

1. Lloyds approval of full scale prototype system onboard M/V Don Quijote. 

2. Extraction of QAPP for Full scale Type Approval testing according to Guidelines for 

approval of ballast water management systems (G8) and the Procedures (G9).

3. Assessment report of Full scale toxicity testing − Det Norske Veritas.

4. Full scale toxicity testing. 

Reference dossier (additions to Reference dossier sent together with “Proposal for Basic 

Approval)” 

Summary: 

The type approval test performed, according to Guidelines (G8) and Procedure (G9) for this 

report, shows that PureBallast meets the D-2 discharge standard and has no significant toxic 

effects or residuals. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 2 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Working Principles of the Alfa Laval Ballast Water Management System (PureBallast) 

The ballast water is treated at intake and once again at discharge. The treatment on intake 

ensures that a minimal amount of viable organisms enter into the ballast water tanks and reduces 

sediment built-up in the tanks, which is a potential area for survival of organisms. The water is 

treated again at discharge to ensure that any potential re-growth of organisms in the ballast water 

tanks is prohibited. 

Description of the PureBallast system and its components 

The PureBallast product is a complete system, composing of three main functions: 

• Filter (50 μm) An automatic back flushing filter for removal of larger particles and 

organisms as well as to reduce the level of sediments in the ballast water tanks. 

• Wallenius AOT (Advanced Oxidation Technology) Unit. 

 A patented system product using naturally occurring photo-processes in the surface layer 

of sea-water. The Wallenius AOT process acts on two levels: in-situ formation of 

reactive free radicals, and direct photo-effects. These two levels synergistically inactivate 

micro-organisms. A special UV light wavelength spectrum is used in combination with a 

catalyst which is based on TiO2. The TiO2 acts as a true catalyst and is not consumed in 

the process. No substances are added to the process. 

• Control and Auxiliary Equipment including sampling points. 

 The control system and transformer control the system and supply all items with power. 

The auxiliary equipment controls the flow and measure different alarm levels. The system 

also composes a CIP unit which is an automatic service device that cleans the quartz 

sleeves covering the UV-lamps after each Ballast or Deballast sequence. This operation is 

done to avoid scaling from seawater contaminants which would otherwise reduce the 

efficiency of the Wallenius AOT Module. 

This application will focus on the Wallenius AOT treatment unit. The filter and other components 

are not considered to be relevant for Active Substance approval. 

Control and Auxiliary Equipment including sampling points 

• Control System 

 An overall control system that controls the process, log all data and give alarms. 

• Transformer 

 Supplies all units with power independent of available power properties on ship. 

• Sampling points 

 Allows for accurate sampling before and after treatment system. 

• CIP (Cleaning In Place) 

 Support equipment for automatic cleaning of the quartz sleeves protecting the UV-lamps. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 3 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

PureBallast Test System Description 

Description of pilot scale test system used for Basic Approval testing 

Pilot scale testing was done prior to the start of these full scale tests. 

The first test was made in April 2006, used for test program for Basic Approval application. The 

tested system was carefully scaled and corresponds to the full scale unit, but used a higher input 

power, relative to the flow. 

The following properties are relevant for the pilot scale test system used in April 2006: 

Specified Flow rate 25 m3

/h 

Power consumption 10 kW 

Number of lamps 10 

A second test was made in June 2006, used for pre-test prior to full scale testing. The tested 

system is carefully scaled and corresponds to the full scale unit. 

The following properties are relevant for the pilot scale test system used in June 2006: 

Specified Flow rate 25 m3

/h 

Power consumption 6 kW 

Number of lamps 10 

Description of the full scale test system used for Type Approval testing 

The full scale test system is designed for the full scale land based testing including the “Final 

Approval” − test program as specified in the attached QAPP-extraction, see appendix 1. 

The following properties are relevant for the full scale test system: 

Specified Flow rate 250 m3/h 

Power consumption 60 kW 

Number of lamps 20 (2x10) 

Treatments Ballast + Deballast (Two treatments) 

Treated volume >200 m3

The toxicity testing in this application is performed during the type approval land based testing 

performed completely according to G8 Guideline, see appendix 3. The detailed procedures and a 

complete test set up are included in the QAPP from NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water 

Research), see appendix 2. 

A complete treatment cycle is two stage treatments which correspond to Ballast as well as 

Deballast. A complete treatment cycle is used for all toxicity and chemical water property tests 

which is presented in this application. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 4 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

2 DEFINITIONS 

Interpretation for the PureBallast system (focus on Wallenius AOT unit) 

“Ballast Water Discharge” is the treated ballast water that has passed the system twice, first 

during Ballast and then after Deballast. 

The term “Preparation” refers to the extremely short lived free radicals generated in treated 

ballast water from the Wallenius AOT process. 

Due to the short life span of the chemistry in the treatment process, all “Relevant Chemicals” as 

defined by IMO is the potential transformation or reaction products in the treated water. 

The above interpretation of definitions indicates that the terms “Active Substance”, “Ballast 

Water Discharge”, “Preparation” and “Relevant Chemicals” all refers to the treated ballast water 

from the Wallenius AOT process. This means that it is the treated water that is considered in this 

application and thus tested regarding toxicity and content of chemicals. 

3 PRINCIPLES 

No comment. 

4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

4.1 Identification 

The following section describes the chemical features and discharge characteristics of the 

Wallenius AOT process. 

Introduction 

The process description presented is based upon the current scientific knowledge about 

photo-catalysis, free radical and marine chemistry cited in the references. Although the 

Wallenius AOT-process generates dichloridyl and dibromidyl radicals in sea water, it does not 

involve any formation of elemental chlorine (Cl2) or bromine (Br2). Elemental chlorine and 

bromine react with organic materials by formation of halogenated products, which can give rise 

to environmental stress. This chemistry is not operative in the Wallenius AOT-process, and 

consequently, neither is the associated environmental concern. It should be pointed out that the 

radicals produced in the AOT-treatment unit are not different from those naturally formed by sun 

light in the surface layer of seawater. Any potential reaction product that may be formed have 

been proposed and measured to support the chemical process description. In fact, when chemical 

changes were observed they indicated a reduction, e.g., the content of chloroform was reduced. 

Most significantly, all biological tests performed have shown that the water treated by the 

Wallenius AOT-process does not display any adverse effect. 

Discharge characteristics 

The basic process operates without addition of chemicals using the synergistic effects of in situ 

produced free radicals and UV-photons to inactivate micro-organisms. Per se, TiO2 is non-toxic 

as shown by its use in re-constructive surgery to obtain bone-compatible links for Ti-implants 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 5 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

such as teeth and hip-joints (Pan et al. 1996, Diebold 2002). TiO2 is also a widely used 

component in paints and cosmetic products. The action of reactive free radicals is of temporal 

nature, i.e. these species are so short-lived (micro-milli second time-scale) that they are not 

observable outside the AOT-treatment unit (Baxendale and Busi 1982, Buxton et al. 1988, 

NDRL/NIST Solution Kinetics Database 2005). 

The only environmental concern of the PureBallast treatment system might be attributed to the 

reaction products. To elucidate whether any environmental effects are to be expected, a series of 

chemical analysis and ecotoxicological tests of possible formation of toxic reaction products and 

their potential effects is relevant. Of primary interest would be the slight possibility of formation 

of halogenated organics or toxic oxidation products (for example bromate). 

A problem related to Ozone treatment of sea water is a significant formation of bromate, a 

suspected carcinogen. This reaction may proceed by way of an oxygen atom transfer 

mechanism. In the photo-catalytic process formation of bromate, BrO3

-

, is unlikely to occur, 

since this would require multiple one-electron oxidation steps. Moreover, the utilization of 

photocatalysis is one of the attractive methods for the removal of BrO3

-

. The reduction of BrO3

-

on a TiO2 photocatalyst under UV irradiation is a well-known reaction, and bromate has even 

been used as an additive to improve the oxidation efficiency of TiO2 photocatalysts (Oosawa and 

Gretzel 1988, Al-Ekabi et al. 1993, Mills et al. 1996, Lindner et al. 1997, Noguchi et al. 2003) 

It should be pointed out that the radicals produced in the AOT-treatment unit are not different 

from those naturally formed by sun light in the surface layer of seawater. In this case, 

photo-cleavage of hydrogen peroxide and/or photo-oxidation of nitrate/nitrite ions may be the 

source of radical formation. 

Therefore, treated ballast water is tested for toxicity and chemical properties, specifically for: 

• Chloro-organic compounds 

• Bromo-organic compounds 

• A general toxicity analysis (aggregate acute and chronic toxicity) 

• Bromate formation 

• THM formation (Tri halo methane) 

• Octanol/Water partition coefficient 

4.2 Data-set for Active Substances and Preparations 

The potential toxic effects of the treatment were tested in a set of bioassays; see Appendix 4 for 

the tests review and test reports. 

4.2.1 A proposal for approval should include information on the properties or actions of the 

Preparation including any of its components as follows: 

.1 Data on effects on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, and other biota, including 

sensitive and representative organisms: 

• acute aquatic toxicity; 

No significant acute toxicity was observed. See report in appendix 4, 

section 3.7. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 6 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

• chronic aquatic toxicity; 

No significant chronic toxicity was observed. See report in appendix 4, 

section 3.7. 

• endocrine disruption; 

Not tested specifically, however juvenile development and reproduction on 

vertebrate as well invertebrate test organism were not found to be affected 

(see appendix 4, section 3.7). Moreover, no significant chemicals were 

identified as potential endocrine affecting substances were found in the 

treated water (see appendix 4, section 3.1). This suggests endocrine 

disruption as being unlikely to occur. 

• sediment toxicity; 

As showed in the chemical and toxicity testing there will be no significant 

residuals resulting from the treatment and therefore no particle flux to the 

sediment. Sediment toxicity is therefore not expected. 

• bioavailability/biomagnification/bioconcentration; 

Octanol/water partitioning does not suggest 

bioaccumulation/biomagnification/bioconcentration to occur, see 

appendix 4, section 3.1. 

• food web/population effects; 

Since the full strength effluent (100%) did not have any deleterious effects 

on any of the test species, the effluent would not be expected to be toxic to 

aquatic organisms and have negative effects on ecological communities at 

environmentally relevant concentrations. 

.2 Data on mammalian toxicity: 

Not relevant according to the results above. 

• acute toxicity; 

• effects on skin and eye; 

• chronic and long-term toxicity; 

• developmental and reproductive toxicity; 

• carcinogenicity; and 

• mutagenicity. 

.3 Data on environmental fate and effect under aerobic and anaerobic conditions: 

• potential physical effects on wildlife and benthic habitats; 

Not tested. Treatment does no affect physical properties of the water, see 

appendix 4, section 3.1. No potential physical effects could be expected. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 7 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

• potential residues in seafood; 

Since bioaccumulation effects are not expected, no residues resulting from 

the treatment are likely to occur. 

• any known interactive effects. 

No interactive effects are expected. 

• Modes of degradation (biotic; abiotic); 

The primary active species are of sufficient reactivity to either react or 

terminate with each other well within the milli-second to second time 

scales and will thus be consumed before they can leave the reactor. The 

primary residues will therefore be reaction products stemming from the 

oxidation (major) or reduction (minor) caused by the free radicals initially 

formed. As these are formed analogously to natural decomposition 

processes they can be expected to be naturally degradable by natural biotic 

or abiotic paths. 

• Bioaccumulation, partition coefficient, octanol/water coefficient; 

The potential for bioaccumulation of the treated water is assessed by 

measurement of possible changes in the octanol/water partition values of 

treated water. No changes have been found, see test results for chemical 

properties in appendix 4, section 3.1. 

• Persistence and identification of the main metabolites in the relevant media 

(ballast water, marine and fresh waters); 

As no oxidation products were identified and no significant measurable 

quantities of those were found, the persistence assessment is not relevant. 

• Reaction with organic matter; 

The process generates free radicals of sufficient reactivity able to react 

with most organic compounds. The major modes of reaction will be 

one-electron transfer (Br2

-·, CO3-·, Cl2-· radicals), hydrogen abstraction 

(hydroxyl, CO3

-· radicals) or addition reactions (hydroxyl radicals). 

All these radicals are naturally formed in the surfaces of (sea) water so any 

reaction products can be expected to be of a character similar to those of 

“natural” decomposition in water. It should be noted that the reactive free 

radicals will react indiscriminately forming an array of different reaction 

products by various reaction paths, making it difficult to predict specific 

products. Generally these kinds of processes are discussed for 

environmental applications to reduce the amount of hazardous material in 

water streams. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 8 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

.4 Physical and chemical properties for the Active Substances and Preparations and 

the treated ballast water, if applicable: 

This technology is a physical-chemical process and does not involve the addition 

of any substances. The in-situ generated free radicals have life times (half life) of 

micro or milli seconds and are consumed inside the reactor. 

• melting point; 

Not applicable. 

• boiling point; 

Not applicable. 

• flammability; 

Not applicable 

. 

• density (relative density); 

Not applicable. 

• Vapour pressure, vapour density; 

Not applicable. 

• water solubility/dissociation constant (pKa); 

The process may increase the amount of oxidized groups in the dissolved 

organic matter, leading to a decrease in COD, i.e. increase in oxidized 

groups like: acidic, alcoholic, aldehyde and ketostructures. This may alter 

the pKa or buffer properties of the treated water. 

• oxidation/reduction potential; 

No change of the oxidation/reduction potential due to the AOT process is 

expected, see appendix 4, section 3.1. 

• corrosivity to the materials or equipment of normal ship construction; 

No change of corrosion potential due to the AOT process is expected. 

• autoignition temperature; 

Not applicable. 

• other known relevant physical or chemical hazards. 

None at this date. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 9 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

.5 Analytical methods at environmentally relevant concentrations. 

4.2.2 A proposal for approval should include the above data set either for the Preparation or for 

each component separately, and a list of the name and relative quantities (in volumetric 

percentages) of the components should be also attached. As described in section 8.1, all 

proprietary data should be treated as confidential. 

Not applicable. 

4.2.3 The tests for Active Substances and Preparations should be carried out in accordance with 

internationally recognized guidelines. 

4.2.4 The testing process should contain a rigorous quality control/quality assurance program 

consisting of: 

All analyses are done according to standard methods and toxicity testing by NIVA (Norwegian 

Institute of Water Research) according to defined QAPP (QMP included), see an extraction of 

used QAPP (QMP included) in appendix 2. The performed tests are supervised by Det Norske 

Veritas, see appendix 3. 

.1 Both a Quality Management Plan (QMP) and a Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP). Guidance on preparation of these plans, along with other guidance 

documents and other general quality control information are available for 

download from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

(www.iso.org). 

See an extraction of used QAPP with QMP included in appendix 2. 

.2 The QMP addresses the quality control management structure and policies of the 

Test Organization (including subcontractors and outside laboratories). 

.3 The QAPP is a project specific technical document reflecting the specifics of the 

system to be tested, the test facility, and other conditions affecting the actual 

design and implementation of the required experiments. 

4.2.5 Dossiers already used for registration of chemicals can be submitted by the applicant to 

satisfy the required data needed for the evaluation of Active Substances and Preparations 

according to this procedure. 

4.2.6 The proposal should describe the manner of application of the Preparation for Ballast 

Water Management, including required dosage and retention time. 

4.2.7 A proposal for approval should include (Material) Safety Data Sheets ((M)SDS). 

4.3 Assessment report 

4.3.1 A proposal for approval should include an assessment report. The assessment report 

should address the quality of the test reports, the risk characterization and a consideration of the 

uncertainty associated with the assessment. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 10 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

The test results found no significant levels of potentially toxic substances and no significant acute 

or chronic effects of the full strength effluent on aquatic organisms. Therefore, no apparent 

environmental risks could be identified. See appendix 4. 

All analyses are done according to standard methods and toxicity testing is performed under 

supervision by Det Norske Veritas. Their assessment report is attached as appendix 3. 

5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 

5.1 Screening for persistency, bioaccumulation and toxicity 

5.1.1 An assessment on the intrinsic properties of the Active Substance and/or Preparation such 

as persistency, bioaccumulation and toxicity should be conducted (see Table 1 in section 6). 

.1 Persistence tests: 

Persistence should preferably be assessed in simulation test systems that 

determine the half-life under relevant conditions. Biodegradation screening tests 

may be used to show that the substances are readily biodegradable. The 

determination of the half-life should include assessment of relevant chemicals. 

See description in section 4.1, headline “Radicals formed and their expected 

lifetime”.

.2 Bioaccumulation tests: 

The assessment of the (potential for) bioaccumulation should use measured 

bioconcentration factors in marine (or freshwater) organisms. Where these tests 

are not applicable, or if logPow <3, Bio Concentration Factor (BCF) values may 

be estimated using (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship ((Q)SAR) 

models. 

The potential for bioaccumulation of the treated water are assessed by 

measurement of possible changes in the octanol/water partition values of treated 

water. No changes has been found, see test results for chemical properties in 

appendix 4. The octanol/water partitioning values do not suggest 

bioaccumulation/biomagnification/bioconcentration to occur. 

.3 Toxicity tests: 

Acute and/or chronic ecotoxicity data, ideally covering the sensitive life stages, 

should in principle be used for the assessment of the toxicity criterion. 

Acute and chronic tests covering survival on three trophic levels, including marine 

algae, marine crustaceans and juveniles fish indicated no significant acute or 

chronic toxicity to any of these endpoints in any test organisms at any effluent 

concentrations as tested. Since the full strength effluent (100%) did not have any 

deleterious effects on any of the test species, the effluent would not be expected to 

be toxic to aquatic organisms and have negative effects on ecological 

communities at environmentally relevant concentrations. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 11 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

5.2 Toxicity testing of the treated Ballast Water 

5.2.1 Toxicity testing is necessary for the Active Substance, or Preparations (see sections 4.2.1 

and 5.3) and the treated Ballast Water Discharge as covered in this section. The advantage of 

conducting toxicity testing on the Ballast Water Discharge is that it integrates and addresses the 

potential for interactions of the Active Substances and Preparations with the possible 

by-products. 

.1 For the basic approval process, the discharge testing should be performed in a 

laboratory using techniques and equipment to simulate Ballast Water Discharge 

following treatment by the Preparation. 

.2 For final approval, the discharge testing should be performed as part of the 

land-based type approval process using the treated ballast water discharge. 

5.2.2 The applicant should provide both acute and chronic toxicity test data using standardized 

test procedures to determine the toxicity of the Preparation and Relevant Chemicals as used in 

conjunction with the Ballast Water Management System. This testing approach should be 

performed on the treated Ballast Water Discharge, as the Ballast Water Management system 

could either mitigate or enhance the adverse effects of the Preparation or Relevant Chemicals. 

5.2.3 The discharge toxicity tests should be conducted on samples drawn from the land-based 

test set-up, which would be representative of the discharge from the Ballast Water Management 

system. 

5.2.4 These toxicity tests should include chronic test methods with multiple test species (a fish, 

an invertebrate and a plant) that address the sensitive life-stage. The preference is to include both 

a sub-lethal endpoint (growth) and a survival endpoint. Either freshwater or marine test methods 

should be tested. 

5.2.5 The test results to be provided include: acute 24-hour, 48-hour, 72-hour, and 96-hour 

Lethal Concentration at which x % of the test organisms die (LCx), No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentrations (NOAECs), chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) and/or Effect 

Concentration at which x % of test organisms show effect (ECx), as appropriate based on the 

experimental design. 

5.2.6 A dilution series including a 100% ballast water discharge would be tested to determine 

the no adverse effect level using the statistical endpoints (NOEC or ECx). An initial analysis 

could use a conservative approach where the dilution capacity would not be taken into 

consideration (no modeling or plumes analysis would be used). The rationale for taking a 

conservative approach is that there could be multiple discharges into one location (even though 

this is not necessarily the case). 

The actual NOEC were not measurable, since no significant toxic effects has been detected even 

using 100% treated ballast water. 

5.2.7 The acute and chronic toxicity test data in conjunction with the information in 

Section 4.2.1 should be used to determine the holding time necessary to achieve the no adverse 

effect concentration upon discharge. Knowing the half-life (days), decay rate, dosage rate, 

volume of system and toxicity tests with time series, then a computational model can be used to 

determine the amount of time needed to hold the treated ballast water before discharge. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 12 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

5.3 Risk characterization and analysis 

5.3.1 For the basic approval process, fate and effect testing should be performed in the 

laboratory with Active Substances and Preparations. This section lists information that could be 

useful for a preliminary risk characterization. 

5.3.2 Both the Active Substance or Preparation as well as the treated Ballast Water Discharge 

should be subject to toxicity testing in order to protect the receiving environment from toxic 

effects due to discharges. 

These are all the same substance as discussed in Interpretation of Definition. 

5.3.3 The reaction with organic matter of Active Substances and Preparations that produce free 

radicals, should be addressed qualitatively so as to identify products of concern to the 

environment. 

See description in section 4.1, headline “Radicals formed and their expected lifetime”.

5.3.4 The rate of abiotic and biotic degradation of the Active Substances and Preparations 

under aerobic and anaerobic conditions should be assessed, resulting in the identification of 

relevant metabolites in the relevant media (ballast water, marine and fresh waters). 

This process does not involve the addition of chemicals. 

5.3.5 The rate of abiotic and biotic degradation of the Active Substances and Preparations 

under aerobic and anaerobic conditions should be assessed, resulting in the characterization of 

the persistence of the Active Substances, Preparations and Relevant Chemicals in terms of 

degradation rates under specified conditions (e.g., pH, redox, temperature). 

See description in section 4.1, headline “Radicals formed and their expected lifetime”.

5.3.6 The partition coefficients (solids-water partition coefficient (Kd) and/or organic carbon 

normalized distribution coefficient (Koc)) of the Active Substances, Preparations and Relevant 

Chemicals should be determined. 

This process does not involve the addition of chemicals and therefore this is not applicable. 

5.3.7 For Active Substances and Preparations, the potential for bioaccumulation should be 

assessed in marine or freshwater organisms (fish or bivalves) if the logarithm octanol/water 

partition coefficient (logPow) is >3. 

This process does not involve the addition of chemicals. The potential for bioaccumulation of 

the treated water was assessed by measurement of possible (if any) changes in the octanol/water 

partition values of treated water. This analysis showed that no changes occurred in the log Pow 

before and after treatment. 

5.3.8 Based on the information on fate and behavior of Active Substances and Preparations, the 

discharge concentrations at selected time intervals should be predicted. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 13 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

As showed in the chemical and toxicity testing there will be no significant residuals or effects 

directly after the Wallenius AOT unit and therefore discharge concentrations at different time 

intervals is not relevant. 

5.3.9 The effect assessment of the Active Substances, Preparations and Relevant Chemicals is 

initially based on a dataset of acute and/or chronic ecotoxicity data for aquatic organisms, being 

primary producers (algae or sea grasses), consumers (crustaceans), predators (fish), and should 

include secondary poisoning to mammalian and avian top-predators, as well as data for 

sediment species. 

The assessment was based on acute and chronic toxicity to primary producers (algae), herbivore 

consumers (rotifers, crustaceans) and juvenile fish. 

5.3.10 An assessment of secondary poisoning is redundant if the substance of concern 

demonstrates a lack of bioaccumulation potential (e.g., BCF <500 L/kg wet weight for the whole 

organism at 6% fat). 

Secondary poisoning testing is not relevant as octanol/water partitioning does not suggest 

bioaccumulation to occur. 

5.3.11 An assessment of sediment species is redundant if the potential of the substance of 

concern to partition into the sediment is low (e.g., Koc <500 L/kg). 

The partition into the sediment cannot exceed the indicated value; the assessment is therefore 

redundant. 

5.3.12 The effect assessment of the Active Substances, Preparations and Relevant Chemicals 

should include a screening on carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine disruptive properties. 

If the screening results give rise to concerns, this should give rise to a further effect assessment. 

As no carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine disruptive substances were found in the analyzed 

water after the treatment, the assessment is not relevant. 

5.3.15 An analytical method suitable for monitoring Active Substances and Preparations in 

ballast water discharges should be available. 

As showed in the chemical and toxicity testing there will be no significant residuals or effects 

directly after the Wallenius AOT unit and therefore monitoring of “Active Substances” or 

“Preparations” in the discharge is not relevant. 

6.3 Ship and personnel safety 

6.3.1 In order to protect the ship and personnel safety the technical group should evaluate the 

physical and chemical hazards (see paragraph 4.2.1.4) to ensure that potential hazardous 

properties of the Active Substances, Preparations or Relevant Chemicals formed in the treated 

ballast water should not create any unreasonable risk to the ship and personnel. Proposed 

procedures for the use and technical equipment introduced needs to be taken into account. 

The only potential risk present in the PureBallast system identified, which is related to the 

Wallenius AOT process, is the UV-irradiation from the UV-lamps and overheating in the 

Wallenius AOT treatment unit. If the flow is cut off the lamps will be automatically shut-off so 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 14 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

there is no risk of overheating. Several independent actions ensure that the shut-off is made. The 

lamps are completely enclosed in the Wallenius AOT chambers and can not be operated outside 

the chamber. There is therefore no risk that any personnel are exposed to the UV-irradiation. 

The free radicals will not be able to leave the Wallenius AOT treatment unit, as described in 

section 4.1, headline “Radicals formed and their expected lifetime”.

A full scale prototype system has been placed onboard a car carrier. The system has been 

evaluated by Lloyd’s classification society and has been approved with regards to ship and crew 

safety, see appendix 1. 

6.3.2 For the protection of personnel involved in the handling and storage of the Active 

Substances and Preparations, the proposal should include relevant ((M)SDS). The Organization 

should evaluate (M)SDS, mammalian toxicity data and chemical properties hazards 

(see paragraphs 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.4) and ensure that potential hazardous properties of the Active 

Substances, Preparations or Relevant Chemicals should not create any unreasonable risk to the 

ship or personnel. This evaluation should take into account the different circumstances that a 

ship or personnel may face in its trade (e.g., ice, tropical, humidity, etc.). 

Not applicable. 

6.4 Environmental protection 

6.4.1 In order to approve the application, the Organization should determine that the Active 

Substances, Preparations or Relevant Chemicals are not Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic 

(PBT). Preparations that exceed all these criteria (Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity) in 

the table below are considered PBT. 

The chemical analyses and toxicity assays results give no rise to concern on potential risks to the 

aquatic environment. As no potentially dangerous substances were identified in the water and 

the full strength effluent did not have any deleterious effects on any of the test species, the 

effluent would not be expected to be harmful to aquatic organisms and have negative effects on 

ecological communities. 

Table 1 Criteria for identification of PBT substances 

Criterion PBT criteria 

Persistence Half-life: 

> 60 days in marine water, or 

> 40 days in freshwater*

, or 

> 180 days in marine sediment, or 

> 120 days in freshwater sediment*

Bioaccumulation BCF > 2,000 or 

LogPoctanol/water ≥3 

Toxicity Chronic NOEC < 0.01 mg/l 

__________________ 

* For the purpose of marine environmental risk assessment half-life data in freshwater and freshwater sediment 

can be overruled by data obtained under marine conditions. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 15 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

6.4.2 The Organization should determine the overall acceptability of the risk the Preparation 

may pose in its use for Ballast Water Management. It should do so by comparing the information 

provided and the undertaken assessment of PBT and the discharge with scientific knowledge of 

the Active Substances, Preparations and Relevant Chemicals concerned. The risk evaluation 

should qualitatively take into account cumulative effects that may occur due to the nature of 

shipping and port operations. 

6.4.3 The risk evaluation should consider the uncertainties involved in the application for 

approval, and as appropriate, provide advice on how these uncertainties can be dealt with. 

7 REGULATION OF THE USE OF ACTIVE SUBSTANCES AND PREPARATIONS 

7.1 Handling of Active Substances and Preparations 

7.1.1 The proposal for approval of Active Substances and Preparations should include 

information on their intended use and application. The quantity of Active Substances and 

Preparations to be added to the ballast water and the maximum allowable concentration of the 

Active Substances therein should be described in the instructions provided by the manufacturer. 

The system is designed with a specified number of UV-lamps and with specified catalyst 

geometry. The same power will be used regardless of the water quality. The toxicity testing and 

chemical properties of the water are tested on this fixed power and at specified flow rate. The 

system can not generate more free radicals than what is achieved with the energy used. 

The system should ensure that the maximum dosage and maximum allowable discharge 

concentration are not exceeded at any time. 

See 7.1.1. 

7.2 Hazard documentation and labeling 

7.2.1 The proposal should include ((M)SDS) as required. The (M)SDS should describe 

appropriate storage and handling together with the effects of degradation and chemical reactivity 

during storage and should be included in the instructions provided by the manufacturer. 

Not applicable. 

7.2.2 Documentation of hazards or the (M)SDS should conform to the UN Globally 

Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and the relevant IMO 

regulations (e.g., the IMDG Code) and guidelines (e.g., the GESAMP Hazard Evaluation 

Procedure). Where these regimes are not applicable, relevant national or regional regimes should 

be followed. 

7.3 Procedures and use 

7.3.1 Detailed procedures and information for safe application of Active Substances and 

Preparations on board should be supplied and comply with the approval conditions such as 

maximum allowable concentration and maximum discharge concentration, if any. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 16 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

8 APPROVAL 

8.1 Basic approval 

8.1.1 All proprietary data should be treated as confidential by the Organization and its 

Technical Group, the Competent Authorities involved, and the evaluating regulatory scientists, 

if any. 

8.1.2 Procedure to be followed: 

.1 The manufacturer should evaluate the Active Substances or Preparations and the 

potential discharge in accordance with the approval criteria specified in this 

procedure. 

.2 Upon completion, the manufacturer should prepare an Application on the Active 

Substances and Preparations and submit it to the Member of the Organization 

concerned. 

.3 The Administration having received a satisfactory application should as soon as 

possible propose an approval to the Organization. 

.4 Members of the Organization may propose an approval. 

.5 The Organization should announce and set the time frame for the evaluation of 

Active Substances and Preparations. 

.6 Parties, Members of the Organization, the United Nations and its Specialized 

Agencies, intergovernmental organizations having agreements with the 

Organization and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the 

Organization may submit information that is relevant to the evaluation. 

.7 The Organization should establish a Technical Group in accordance with its rules 

of procedure ensuring that proprietary data should be treated as confidential. 

.8 The Technical Group should review the comprehensive proposal along with any 

additional data submitted and report to the Organization whether the proposal has 

demonstrated a potential for unreasonable risk for environment, human health, 

property or resources in accordance with the criteria specified in this procedure. 

.9 The Technical Group’s report should be in written form and circulated to the 

Parties, Members of the Organization, the United Nations and its Specialized 

Agencies, intergovernmental organizations having agreements with the 

Organization and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the 

Organization, prior to its consideration by the competent Committee. 

.10 The Committee of the Organization should decide whether to approve any 

proposal, introduce any modifications thereto, if appropriate, taking into account 

the Technical Group’s report. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 17 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

.11 The Member of the Organization that submitted the application to the 

Organization should inform in writing the applicant about the decision made with 

regard to the respective Active Substance or Preparation and their manner of 

application. 

.12 Active Substances or Preparations receiving basic approval by the Organization 

may be used for prototype or type approval testing based on the guidelines 

developed by the Organization. An Active Substance or Preparation may be used 

for Prototype or Type Approval testing for the approval of different BWMS 

without going through basic approval again. 

8.2 Final approval 

8.2.1 In accordance with Regulation D-3.2, a Ballast Water Management system using an 

Active Substance or Preparation to comply with the Convention (which received basic approval) 

must be approved by the Organization. For this purpose, the Member of the Organization 

submitting an application should conduct the Type Approval tests in accordance with Guidelines 

for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems. The results should be conveyed to the 

Organization for confirmation that the residual toxicity of the discharge conforms to the 

evaluation undertaken for Basic Approval. This would result in Final Approval of the Ballast 

Water Management system in accordance with Regulation D-3.2. Active Substances or 

Preparations that have received Basic Approval by the Organization may be used for evaluation 

of Ballast Water Management systems using Active Substances or Preparations for 

Final Approval. 

8.3 Notification of approval 

8.3.1 The Organization will record the Basic and Final Approval of Active Substances and 

Preparations and Ballast Water Management systems that make use of Active Substances and 

circulate the list once a year including the following information: 

• Name of Ballast Water Management system that make use of Active Substances 

and Preparations; 

• Date of approval; 

• Name of manufacturer; and 

• Any other specifications, if necessary. 

8.4 Modification 

8.4.1 Manufacturers should report any modifications in names, including trade and technical 

name, composition or use of the Active Substances and Preparations in the Ballast Water 

Management systems approved by the Organization, to the Member of the Organization. The 

Member of the Organization should inform the Organization accordingly. 

8.4.2 Manufacturers intending to significantly change any part of a Ballast Water Management 

System that has been approved by the Organization or the Active Substances and Preparations 

used in it should submit a new application. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 18 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

8.5 Withdrawal of approval 

8.5.1 The Organization may withdraw any approval in the following circumstances: 

.1 If the Active Substances and Preparations or Ballast Water Management system 

that make use of Active Substances no longer conforms to requirements due to 

amendments of the Convention. 

.2 If any data or test records differ materially from data relied upon at the time of 

approval and is deemed not to satisfy the approval condition. 

.3 If a request for withdrawal of approval is made by the Member of the 

Organization on behalf of the manufacturer. 

.4 If unreasonable harm to environment, human health, property or resources is 

demonstrated by any Member of the Organization or observer to have been caused 

by the approved Ballast Water Management system that make use of Active 

Substances or Preparations. 

9 CONCLUSION 

The PureBallast process uses UV-energy together with catalysts in order to produce free radicals 

which will react with and destroy the cell membranes of the microorganisms causing their death. 

The process simulates and enhances the natural process which occurs when the sunlight hits the 

surface of the seawater. There are no chemicals added and there are no chemicals formed which 

can enter the ballast tanks. 

The chemical testing made before and after the treatment has not indicated any significant 

residual substances. The results from acute and chronic toxicity tests show that there is no 

significant toxic effect detected in the treated water, see appendix 4. 

The system placed on board will not require any handling of chemicals on board, neither will it 

compromise the safety for the ship or the crew. As showed in the chemical tests the 

properties/reactivity of the water is not changed compared to the inlet seawater and will not 

affect the corrosion rate in the BW tanks. 

REFERENCES (FOR PUREBALLAST PROCESS DESCRIPTION) 

The references below are all sent as documents together with this application, except for the ones 

already sent for the Basic Approval. The references already sent together with Basic Approval 

are marked in grey letters and is available for the GESAMP group. The new references are 

numbered and are filed accordingly in the folders. 

Ahmed S., Jones C.E., Kemp T.J. and Unwin P.R. (1999) “The role of mass transfer in 

solution photocatalysis at a supported titanium dioxide surface” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., (1), 

5229-5233. 

Al-Ekabi H., Butters B., Delaney D., Ireland J., Lewis N., Powwell T. and Story J. (1993) 

“Photocatalytic purification and treatment of water and air” Ed. Ollis D.F. and Al-Ekabi H., 

Elsevier, Amsterdam, 321-335. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 19 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

Baxendale J.H. and Busi F. (1982) “The study of fast and transient species by pulse radiolysis” 

NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, Reidel Publ. Company, Vol. D. 

1. Bouchard JN, Campbell DA, Roy S (2005) “Effects of UV-B radiation on the 

D1 proteinrepair cycle of natural phytoplankton communities from three latitudes 

(Canada, Brazil, and Argentina)”. J. of Phyc. 41 (2), 273-286. 

2. Buma AGJ, Helbling W, de Boer MK, Villafañe V (2001) “Patterns of 

DNA damage and photoinhibition in temperate South-Atlantic picophytoplankton 

exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation”. J. of Photochem. and Photobiol. B: 

Biology 62 (1-2), 9-18. 

Buxton G.V., Greenstock C.L., Helman W.P. and Ross A.B. (1988) “Critical Review of Rate 

Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals in 

Aqueous Solutions” J. of Phys. and Chem. Ref. Data, 2(17), 513-886. 

3. Demmig-Adams B., Gilmore A.M. and Adams III W.W. (1996) “In vivo 

functions of carotenoids in higher plants”, FASEB J 10, 403-412. 

Diebold U. (2003) “The surface science of titanium dioxide” Surface Science Reports 48, 

53-229. 

4. Diffey BL (1991) “Solar ultraviolet radiation effects on biological systems”. Phys. 

In Med. and Biol. 36 (3): 299-328. free access via: 

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-503/001-503.html 

5. Du Y. and Rabani J. (2006) “Flocculation-Induced Homolysis of Hydrogen 

Peroxide in Aqueous Solution of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles” J. Phys. Chem. 

B 110, 6123-6128. 

Engel D.W. et al. (1974) “The effect of ionizing radiation and salinity on the grass shrimp 

Palaemonetes pugio” Radiation Research 59. 

Fujishima A., Rao T.N. and Tryk D.A. (2000) “Titanium dioxide photocatalysis” Journal of 

Photochemistry and Photobiology C: Photochemistry Reviews 1, 1-21. 

6. Gao R., Safrany A., and Rabani J. (2003) “Reactions of TiO2 excess electron in 

nanocrystallite aqueous solutions studied by pulse and gamma-radiolytic systems” 

Rad. Phys. Chem. 67, 25-39. 

7. Gieskes W.W.C. and Buma A.G.J. (1997) “UV damage to plant life in a 

photobiologically dynamic environment: the case of marine phytoplankton” Plant 

Ecology 128: 17-25. 

8. Hashimoto K., Irie H. and Fujishima A. (2005) “TiO2 Photocatalysis: A Historical 

Overview and Future Prospects”Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 44(12), 

8269-8285. 

Horne R. A. (1969) in Marine Chemistry, Wiley-Interscience, N.Y., 153-155. 

9. Hessen D, De Lange H., Van Donk E (1997) “UV-induced changes in 

phytoplankton cells and its effects on grazers”. Freshwater Biol. 38 (3), 513-524. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 20 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

10. Häder DP (2000) “Effects of solar UV-B radiation on aquatic ecosystems”. Adv. 

in Space Res. 26, 2029-2040. 

11. Häder DP, Kumar HD, Smith RC, Worrest RC (2003) “Aquatic ecosystems: 

effects of solar ultraviolet radiation and interactions with other climatic change 

factors”. Photochem. and Photobiol. Sci. 2, 39-50. 

Ivanovskii IuA. and Mitrofanov IuA (1978) “Stimulation of Artemia salina nauplius emergence 

under the action of gamma irradiation” Radiobiologiia:18(1), 135-8. 

Kamat P.V. (1993) “Photochemistry on Nonreactive and Reactive (Semiconductor) Surfaces” 

Chem. Rev. 93, 267-300. 

12. Kaiser E. and Herndl G.J. (1997) “Rapid Recovery of Marine Bacterioplankton 

Activity after Inhibition by UV Radiation in Coastal Waters” App. And Envir. 

Microb. 63 (10), 4026-4031. 

Legrini O., Oliveros E. and Braun A.M. (1993) “Photochemical Processes for Water Treatment” 

Chem. Rev. 93, 671-698. 

Lindner M., Theurich J. and Bahnemann D.W. (1997) “Photocatalytic degradation of organic 

compounds: accelerating the process efficiency” Water Science and Technology, 35(4), 79-86. 

13. Madsen D., Larsen J., Jensen S.K., Keiding S.R and Thøgersen J. (2003) “The 

primary Photodynamics of Aqueous Nitate: Formation of Peroxynitrite” Journal 

of the American Chemical Society 125, 15571-15576. 

14. Mendez-Alvarez S., Leisinger U. and Eggen I. L. R. (1999) “Adaptive responses 

in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii” INTERNATL MICROBIOL, 2, 15-22. 

Mills A., Belghazi A. and Rodman D. (1996) “Bromate removal from drinking water by 

semiconductor photocatalysis” Wat. Res. 30(9), 1973-1978. 

15. Moore M.M., Breedveld M.W. and Autor A.P. (1989) “The role of carotenoids in 

preventing oxidative damage in the pigmented yeast, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa”, 

Arch Biochem Biophys 270, 419-431. 

NDRL/NIST Solution Kinetics Database (2005), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

webresource http://kinetics.nist.gov/solution/index.php 

Nogueira F. et al. (1998) “Radio resistance studies in Methylobacterium” Radiat. Phys. 

Chem. 52(1-6), 15-19. 

Noguchi H., Nakajima A., Watanabe T. and Hashimoto K. (2003) “Design of a photocatalyst for 

bromate decomposition: Surface modification of TiO2 by pseudo-boehmite” Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 37, 153-157. 

Oosawa Y. and Gretzel M. (1988) “Effect of surface hydroxyl density on photocatalytic oxygen 

generation in aqueous TiO2 suspensions” Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday 

Transactions 1, 84(1), 197-205. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 21 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

Pan J., Thierry D. and Leygraf C. (1996) “Hydrogen peroxide toward enhanced oxide growth on 

titaniumin PBS solution: Blue coloration and clinical relevance” J. Biomedical Materials 

Research, l 30, 393-402. 

Platzman R. and Frank J. (1954) “The role of the hydration configuration in electronic processes 

involving ions in aqueous solution” The European Physical Journal A – Hadrons and Nuclei 

(Historical Archive), 138, 411-431. 

Rijstenbil J.W. (2003) “Effects of UVB radiation and salt stress on growth, pigments 

and antioxidative defence of the marine diatom Cylindrotheca closterium” Mar. Ecol. Prog. 

Ser. 254, 37-48. 

Rijstenbil J.W. (2005) “UV – and salinity-induced oxidative effects in the marine diatom 

Cylindrotheca closterium during simulated emersion” Marine Biology 147:1063-1073. 

Rothenberger G., Moser J., Grätzel. M., Serpone. N. and Sharma. D.K. (1985) “Charge Carrier 

Trapping and Recombination Dynamics in Small Semiconductor Particles” J. Am. Chem. 

Soc. 107:8054. 

16. Sarthou G., Jeandel C., Brisset L, Amouroux D., Besson T. and Donard O.F.X. 

(1997) “Fe and H2O2 distributions in the upper water column in the Indian sector 

of the Southern Ocean” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 147, 83-92. 

17. Stenman D. (2004) “Advanced oxidation technologies for the pulp industry. – an 

investigation on the delignifying properties of the carbonate radical.” PhD-thesis 

KTH. ISBN 91-7283-903-0. 

Tada H. (2002) “Photocatalytic oxidation processes at titanium dioxide surfaces: enhancing 

effects of surface modification with oxide-(sub) monolayers on photocatalytic activity” 

Encyclopedia of surface and colloid science, Marcel Dekker Inc., 4043-4058. 

Treinin A. and Hayon E. (1975) “Charge Transfer Spectra of Halogen Atoms in Water. 

Correlation of the Electronic Transition Energies of Iodine, Bromine, Chlorine, Hydroxyl, and 

Hydrogen Radicals with Their Electron Affinities” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97(7):1716-1721. 

Xiao-Ying Yu (2004) “Critical Evaluation of Rate Constants of Hydrogen Peroxide Photolysis in 

Acidic Aqueous Solutions Containing Chloride Ions” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 33(3). 

Zaafrane S., Maatouk K., Gauthier J.M. and Bakhrouf A. (2004) “Influence of preliminary 

cultivation conditions and the presence of the rpoS gene on the survival of Salmonella 

typhimurium in sea water exposed to sunlight” Canadian Journal of Microbiology 50(5), 

341-350. 

18. Woodward J. R., Cirillo V. P. and Edmunds L. N. JR. (1978) “Light Effects in 

Yeast: Inhibition by Visible Light of Growth and Transport in Saccharomyces 

cerevisiae Grown at Low Temperatures” J. of Bacteriology, 133(2), 692-698. 
MEPC 56/2/1 

ANNEX 

Page 22 

I:\MEPC\56\2-1.doc 

APPENDIX 1 – LLOYDS APPROVAL OF FULL-SCALE PROTOTYPE SYSTEM 

ONBOARD M/V DON QUIJOTE 

APPENDIX 2 – EXTRACTION FROM QAPP FOR FULL SCALE TEST PROGRAM 

Due to the bulkiness only the table of contents and short description of the QAPP is included. 

The QAPP is has been approved by DNV prior to the start of the Type Approval tests. 

 
Norwegian Institute for Water Research 

Revised: 6th of December 2006 

Approved: 6h of December 2006 

 

Extracted version 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

- for the full scale testing of the PureBallast treatment system of 

Alfa Laval/Wallenius Water AB 
Table of contents 

Abbreviations and acronyms 

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, OBJECTIVES AND ORGANISATION 

1.1 Address of QAPP 

1.2 Processes to be evaluated 

1.2.1 Preparations 

1.2.2 Execution of tests 

1.2.3 Reporting of results 

1.3 Description of test site and technology set-up 

1.3.1 Test site 

1.3.2 The PureBallast water management system (PureBallast system) 

1.3.2.1 Process description 

1.3.2.2 System and component description 

1.3.2.3 Physical properties of the PureBallast test equipment 

1.4 Organization of the project 

1.4.1 Presentation of Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) - testing site owner and testing 

organization 

1.4.2 Quality management plan (QMP) of NIVA 

1.4.3 Presentation of the vendor 

1.4.3.1 Presentation of Alfa Laval 

1.4.3.2 Presentation of Wallenius Water AB 

1.5 Responsibilities of all project participants 

1.5.1 Preparation of test tanks and clarification for the installation of the PureBallast treatment system at the test 

facility 

1.5.2 Installation, clarification, operation and dismantling of the PureBallast treatment system 

1.5.3 Fulfilment of the chemical water quality requirement 

1.5.4 Fulfilment of the biological water quality requirement 

1.5.5 Sample collection and preservation 

1.5.6 Clarifying test waters for discharge to recipient waters 

1.5.7 Laboratory chemical measurements 

1.5.8 Measurements of biological treatment factors 

1.5.9 Acute and chronic toxicity tests 

1.5.10 Data handling and reporting of test results 

1.5.11 Project management and coordination 

1.5.12 Quality assurance of project 

2. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH 

2.1 Technology installation and shakedown procedures 

2.2 Technology start-up and stop procedures 

2.2.1 System start-up procedures 

2.2.2 System stop procedures 

2.3 Technology calibration checks 

2.4 Preparation of test waters 

2.4.1 Assurance of fulfilment of chemical water quality test criteria 

2.4.2 Assurance of fulfilment of biological water quality test criteria 

2.4.2.1 Harvesting of indigenous organisms 

2.4.2.2 Cultivation of Artemia salina and Tetraselmis suecia and/or Brachiomonas submarina

2.4.2.3 Bacteria 
2.4.3 Discharge of waters 

2.5 Running test cycles 

2.6 Sampling and measurements 

2.7 Time schedule for the testing period 

3. SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

3.1 Representativeness of samples 

3.2 Sampling of test waters 

3.3 Sample preservation 

3.4 Measures to avoid cross-contamination during test water transfer and sampling 

4. TESTING AND MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS 

4.1 In situ measurements 

4.1.1 Temperature 

4.1.2 pH 

4.1.3 Dissolved oxygen (DO) 

4.1.4 Salinity 

4.2 Discrete samples 

4.2.1 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 

4.2.2 Particulate organic carbon (POC) 

4.2.3 Total suspended solids (TSS) 

4.2.4 Organisms >50 μm 

4.2.5 Organisms ≥10-50 μm 

4.2.6 Heterotrophic bacteria 

4.2.7 Coliforms 

4.2.8 E.coli

4.2.9 Enterococcus group 

4.2.10 Intestinal Enterococci

4.2.11 Vibrio cholerae

4.2.12 Vibrio cholerae (Serotypes O1 and O139) 

4.3 Chemical measurements – initial quick tests 

4.3.1 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 

4.3.2 Particulate organic carbon (POC) 

4.3.3 Total suspended solids (TSS) 

4.3.4 Turbidity 

4.4 Toxicity testing of treated ballast water 

4.4.1 Growth inhibition of marine algae 

4.4.2 Acute toxicity of marine copepods 

4.4.3 Reproduction of marine copepods 

4.4.4 Acute toxicity of fish 

4.4.5 Juvenile fish growth test 

5. QA/QC CHECKS 

5.1 Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) 

5.1.1 Representativeness 

5.1.2 Accuracy 

5.1.3 Precision 
5.1.4 Bias 

5.1.5 Comparability 

5.2 Emergency plan 

5.2.1 Power failure 

5.2.2 Collapse in organism cultivation 

5.2.3 Pumping failure 

5.2.4 Identification of Vibrio cholerae in test water 

5.2.5 The right to veto between verifier and project group 

6. DATA REPORTING, DATA REDUCTION AND DATA VALIDATION 

6.1 Approach for data management and evaluation 

6.2 Reporting requirements 

6.3 References 

Appendix A – Total project management 

Appendix B – Chemical water quality preparation 

Appendix C – Biological water quality preparation 

Appendix D – Collection and preservation of samples 

Appendix E – Logging of in situ measurements 

Appendix F – Evaluation form for organisms >50 μm 

Appendix G – Evaluation form for organisms ≥10-50 μm 

Appendix H – Evaluation form for heterotrophic bacteria, coliform bacteria, Enterococcus group bacteria 

and Vibrio sp. 

Appendix I – Acute toxicity of the green algae Skeletonema costatum (page 1 of 1) 

Appendix J – Acute toxicity of marine copepods (page 1 of 1) 

Appendix K – Acute toxicity of juvenile turbot; setup form for method K19 

Appendix L – Process Description 

Appendix M – Description and the PureBallast system and its components 
1. Project description, objectives and organisation

1.1 Address of QAPP 

This QAPP describes the implementation of quality assurance and quality control activities during the 

evaluation of the Alfa Laval Pureballast water management system according to the requirements for 

biological and toxicity testing stated in the IMO Guidelines for Approval of Shipboard Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems (MEPC 53/24/Add.1, Annex 3, 2005). The requirements involve all parts and 

processes of the test as listed in: 

Annex - Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8) 

• Part 2 – Test and performance specifications for approval of ballast water management 

systems 

• 2.1 Quality assurance and quality control procedures (page 15) 

• 2.3 Land-based Testing (pages 17-22) 

• 2.4 Reporting of Test Results (page 22) 

• Part 4 – Sample analysis methods for the determination of biological constituents in ballast 

water 

• Section 4.1 – 4.8 (page 24-26) 

Annex 4 MEPC 53/25/Add.1 - Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that 

make use of active substance (G9) 

• Section 1-5 (pages 1-7) 

The QAPP is a mean to reveal any problems before start-up and during execution of the project at as early 

stage as possible to minimize any potential procedural, technical and scientific inadequacies and timeand economic losses. This QAPP will be used for biological testing in accordance with the IMO 

guidelines as well as for the final and basic approval testing of active substances. 
APPENDIX 3 – Assessment report Det Norske Veritas 

APPENDIX 4 – Full scale toxicity testing of the PureBallast system 

REPORT SNO 

Full scale toxicity 

testing of the 

PureBallast System 

- preliminary report 
NIVA 

Norwegian Institute for Water Research 

– an institute in the Environmental Research Alliance of Norway REPORT

Main Office Regional Office, 

Sørlandet 

Regional Office, 

Østlandet 

Regional Office, 

Vestlandet 

Regional Office 

Midt-Norge 

P.O. Box 173, Kjelsås Televeien 3 Sandvikaveien 41 Nordnesboder 5 P.O. Box 1266 

N-0411 Oslo, Norway N-4879 Grimstad, Norway N-2312 Ottestad, Norway N-5008 Bergen, Norway N-7462, Norway 

Phone (47) 22 18 51 00 Phone (47) 37 29 50 55 Phone (47) 62 57 64 00 Phone (47) 55 30 22 50 Phone (47) 73 54 63 85 / 86 

Telefax (47) 22 18 52 00 Telefax (47) 37 04 45 13 Telefax (47) 62 57 66 53 Telefax (47) 55 30 22 51 Telefax (47) 73 54 63 87 

Internet: www.niva.no 

Title 

Full scale toxicity testing of the PureBallast System – 

preliminary report 

Serial No. 

Report No. Sub-No. 

Date 

2006 

Pages Price 

 

Author(s) 

Helge Liltved 

Christian Vogelsang 

August Tobiessen 

Tor Gunnar Jantsch 

 

 

Topic group

Water treatment 

Geographical area

Norway 

Distribution 

Confidential 

Printed 

NIVA 

Client(s) 

Wallenius Water AB, Stockholm, Sweden 

Client ref. 

Carl Tullstedt 

Abstract 

The PureBallast System, developed by Alfa Laval / Wallenius Water, was tested in a full scale system to evaluate the 

performance according to the IMO Guidelines. The biological and toxicological tests were conducted at NIVA’s test 

site located at Solbergstrand 20 km south of Oslo. Test cycles were conducted with moderate and high salinity water. 

Each cycle lasted for a period of 5 days. Based on the conducted acute and chronic toxicity tests, and chemical 

analyses, it is concluded that ballast water treated with the present technology do not provide hazard or risk to the 

marine ecosystem when released. 

 

4 keywords, Norwegian 4 keywords, English 

1. Ballastvann 1. Ballast water 

2. Toksikologi 2. Toxicology 

3. Testing 3. Testing 

4. Wallenius Water AB 4. Wallenius Water AB 

 

Helge Liltved HelgeLiltved Jarle Nygard 

ISBN 
NIVA 

4 

Contents 

Abbreviations and acronyms 

Summary 

1. BACKGROUND 

2. MATERIALS AND TEST PROTOCOLS 

2.1 Test site 

2.2 The evaluated ballast water treatment system 

2.2.1 General description of the PureBallast System 

2.3 Test waters

2.3.1 Overview of requirements 

2.3.2 Fulfilment of chemical water quality test criteria 

2.3.3 Fulfilment of biological water quality test criteria 

Harvesting of indigenous organisms

Cultivation of Artemia salina and Brachiomonas submarina

Bacteria

2.4 Test procedure 

2.4.1 Description of test cycle 

2.4.2 Measures to avoid cross-contamination during water transfer and sampling 

2.5 Sampling

2.5.1 Assuring the representativeness of samples 

2.5.2 Sampling protocols 

2.5.3 Overview of sampling equipment 

2.5.4 Sample preservation 

2.6 Analyses 

2.6.1 Chemical measurements 

Temperature

pH

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Salinity

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)

Particulate organic carbon (POC)

Total suspended solids (TSS)

2.6.2 Identification and quantification of viable organisms ≥50 μm 

2.6.3 Identification and quantification of viable organisms >10-50 μm 

2.6.4 Identification and quantification of viable bacteria 

Heterotrophic bacteria

Thermotolerant coliform bacteria

Enterococcus group

Vibrio sp.

2.6.5 Toxicity measurements of treated Ballast water 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

3.1 Fulfillment of chemical water quality criteria 
NIVA 

5 

3.2 Fulfillment of the biological water quality criteria 

3.3 Operational performance of the PureBallast system 

3.4 Biocidal effects on organisms ≥50 μm in minimum diameter 

3.5 Biocidal effects on organisms ≥10-50 μm in minimum diameter 

3.6 Bactericidal effects 

3.7 Ecotoxicological responses 

Appendix A. Test reports 
NIVA 

6 

 Summary 

The tests were conducted at NIVA’s test site located at Solbergstrand 20 km south of Oslo. 

The tests were conducted with moderate salinity and with high salinity. Each cycle lasted for 

a period of 5 days. The tests were conducted according to the IMO specifications. 

The test water was prepared in a common 516 m3 tank (WST). A combination of indigenous 

harvested organisms and cultured surrogate species (>50 μm group: Artemia salina; 10-50 μm 

group: Brachiomonas submarina and/or Tetraselmis suecica) and heterotrophic bacteria were 

added to fulfil the biological water quality criteria described in Table 1. 

The test line involved consecutive treatment of at least 200 m3

 test water by the 50 μm filter 

unit and the PureBallast System transferring the test water from WST to a temporary holding 

tank (TT1) before a second treatment by the PureBallast System and transfer to a storage tank 

(TT2) for at least five days storage. The control line was run by transferring at least 200 m3

 of 

the same type of prepared test water from WST to a second temporary holding tank (TT1) 

using the pump of the PureBallast system, but in by-pass of the treatment units before transfer 

to a second storage tank (CT2) for a five days storage time. 

Fulfilment of the chemical and biological requirements of the test water 

• The required levels for total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 

and particulate organic carbon (POC) were fulfilled in all test cycles reported. 

• The requirements regarding density of the ≥50 μm group was met in the tests reported. 

The requirements regarding the biological diversity within the population were most 

probably fulfilled in all tests. The final analysis has not been conducted yet. 

• The requirement for the ≥10-50 μm group was met. The requirements regarding the 

biological diversity within the population were most probably fulfilled in all tests. The 

final analysis has not been conducted yet. 

• The only requirement regarding bacteria in influent water is that heterotrophic bacteria 

should be present in a density of ≥104

 ml-1. This requirement was fulfilled in all tests 

Biocidal effects of treatment and storage 

• The required less than 10 viable organisms ≥50 μm in minimum diameter per m3

 in 

the treated water after five days storage was fulfilled in all tests. The equivalent 

requirement of the non-treated control test water, stating that the level of viable 

organisms after 5 days storage should be higher than 100 per m3

, was also fulfilled in 

all tests. 

• The required less than 10 viable organisms ≥10 - 50 μm in minimum diameter per ml 

in the treated water after five days storage was reached in all tests, both analyzed with 

the dilution method and by microscope counts. The equivalent requirement for the 

non-treated control test water after 5 days storage states that the level of viable 

organisms should be higher than 100 per ml. This requirement was fulfilled in all test 

by both methods. 

• Regulation D-2 only requires documentation of maximum allowable effluent 

concentration after five days storage of Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae (toxicogenic 

serotypes O1 and O139) and Enterococci; <250 cfu/100ml, <1 cfu/100ml and <100 

cfu/100ml, respectively. These requirements were fulfilled for E. coli and Enterococci. 
NIVA 

7 

Testing to confirm any presence of serotypes O1 and O139 among the residual Vibrio

sp. in treated test waters after five days storage is conducted. Presence of these 

serotypes have not been reported in Norwegian coastal water. 

Toxicity testing 

The ecotoxicity of treated ballast water was tested once with undiluted (100 %) samples on 

three trophic levels using marine chronic tests with untreated control water as control. No 

detectable toxicity was observed on the marine alga Skeletonema costatum (growth inhibition 

test), Nitocera spinipes (invertebrate reproduction test) or Scophtalmus mixmus (acute fish test 

and fish growth test). A mortality of 27% of the marine crustacean Acartia tonsa was 

observed at the highest tested concentration (100%) compared to 9% in the control. It should 

be commented that high death-rate in the control can be a problem with the test, as also 

experienced in the current test. This death-rate can give misleading results. No effects were 

observed in the test with the other marine crustacean Nitocra spinipes. It is therefore doubtful 

that the effect observed can be attributed to toxicity. Lack of mortality >50 % at any test 

concentration precludes estimation of LC50. 

Treated waters in test cycle 3 were also sampled and analysed for AOX, EOX, 

trihalomethanes, Potential Bioaccumulating Substances (PBS) and free and total residual 

oxidants (TRO). All compounds, except AOX and PBS, were below the detection limits. 

However, the concentrations of AOX and PBS were not significant different from the 

concentrations found in control water. 

Based on the conducted acute and chronic toxicity tests, and the chemical analysis, it is 

concluded that ballast water treated with the present ballast water technology do not provide 

hazard or risk to the marine ecosystem when released. 
NIVA 

8 

1 Background

The overall goal for Alfa Laval /Wallenius Water is certification of the PureBallast Ballast 

Water Management System in accordance with the requirements in the IMO Convention on 

ballast water management and underlying guidelines, including the IMO Guidelines for 

Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, Annex 3 and Annex 4 (july 2005). 

Pilot tests were conducted, in June 2006, for partial fulfilment of such a certification. The 

objective of the pilot testing was to verify the environmental performance characteristics of 

the PureBallast Pilot System technology relative to the biological and toxicological 

requirements stated in the IMO Guideline. By performing a pilottest, difficulties and “bottlenecks” could be detected, and measures could be taken to avoid problems during the full scale 

testing. The experience from the pilottest served as a fundament for testing of the technology 

in full scale. 

These full scale Type Approval tests were made in accordance with the requirements in the 

IMO Convention on ballast water management and underlying guidelines, including the IMO 

Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, Annex 3 and Annex 4 (july 

2005). 

2 Materials and test protocols

2.1 Test site 

The tests were conducted at NIVA’s test site (see Figure 1) located at Solbergstrand 20 km 

south of Oslo. Sea water is supplied from various depths down to 60 m in the Oslofjord, while 

fresh water is supplied from ground water bore holes or from a local creek. 

The test facility includes 4 glass-fibre reinforced polyester tanks, supplied with inlet and 

outlet arrangements and equipment for proper cleaning. Two of the tanks are covered to 

prevent light introduction. The surfaces of the test tanks (TT1 and TT2) and the control tank 

(CT1) are coated with coatings for ships (Balloxy HB light, Jotun, Norway). Propeller devices 

with gentle rotation are mounted at the bottom and at shallow depth in WST and TT1, and at 

the bottom in TT2 and CT2. These propeller devices are used to suspend particles, including 

algae and zooplankton, evenly and homogenise the content. A test is conducted to verify 

homogenisation prior to each test and prior to sampling. 

2.2 The evaluated ballast water treatment system 

2.2.1 General description of the PureBallast System 

The PureBallast System from Alfa Laval / Wallenius Water is a complete ballast water 

treatment system composing of three main component ballast water treatment system; 1) a 50 

μm filter for removal of larger particles and organisms, 2) the Wallenius AOT unit, a patented 

treatment technology using the synergetic effects of in situ produced free radicals and direct 
NIVA 

9 

photo-radiation to inactivate microbes and 3) control and auxiliary equipment including 

sampling points to control water flows and measure different alarm levels during operation as 

well as to take samples during operation and testing. A detailed description of the PureBallast 

system is given in the QAPP. 

2.3 Test waters 

Test waters were prepared in a 516 m3

 tank (WST) from high salinity sea water from 60 

meters depth or from brackish surface water depending on the required salinity (>32 PSU or 

3-32 PSU, respectively, with a minimum difference of 10 PSU). The 516 m3 of test water was 

used for both testing and control. A combination of harvested indigenous organisms and 

cultured surrogate species (>50 μm: Artemia salina; 10-50 μm: Tetraselmis suecica and/or 

Brachiomonas submarina and heterotrophic bacteria) were added to fulfil the biological 

water quality criteria, and soluble lignin, starch and kaolin was added to adjust the contents of 

dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic carbon (POC) and total suspended solids 

(TSS), respectively, to within the limits of chemical water quality criteria. 

2.3.1 Overview of requirements 

Table 1 summarizes the chemical requirements of the test waters, while Table 2 summarizes 

the biological requirements. 

Table 1. Required chemical water quality of test waters. Salinities should be separated by at least 10 

PSU

Salinity DOC POC TSS 

Test water 1 >32 PSU >1 mg/l >1 mg/l >1 mg/l 

Test water 2 3-32 PSU >5 mg/l >5 mg/l >50 mg/l

Test water 3 ≤ 3 PSU >5 mg/l >5 mg/l >50 mg/l

Table 2. Required biological water quality in influent test water, treated water and in control after 5 

days storage as stated in regulation G8 by IMO. 

Organism group Influent water In treated water 

after 5 days storage 

In control after 

5 days storage** 

≥50 μm min. 

dimension 

Pref. 106 m-3, ≥105 m-3

Min. 5 species from 3 

diff. phyla/divisions 

<10 viable 

organisms per m3

> 10x <10 viable 

organisms per m3

≥10-50 μm min. 

dimension 

104 ml-1, ≥103 ml-1

Min. 5 species from 3 

diff. phyla/divisions 

<10 viable 

organisms per m3

> 10x <10 viable 

organisms per m3

Heterotrophic 

bacteria 

≥104 ml-1 

Vibrio sp. <1 cfu/100 ml ≥10x <1 cfu/100 ml

Escherichia coli <250 cfu/100 ml ≥10x <250 cfu/100 

ml 

Intestinal 

Enterococci

 <100 cfu/100 ml ≥10x <100 cfu/100 

ml 

** As discussed in the results and discussion section. 
NIVA 

10 

2.3.2 Fulfilment of chemical water quality test criteria 

Soluble lignin (40 % solution, Borrebond FP-P, Borregaard, Norway), starch and kaolin clay 

(Merck) was added to adjust the contents of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate 

organic carbon (POC) and total suspended solids (TSS), respectively, to within the limits of 

chemical water quality criteria described in Table 1. The necessary additions of each 

compound were calculated on the basis of earlier laboratory tests where the actual addition to 

each parameter (e.g. DOC, POC and TSS) one compound unit resulted in were measured. 

Initially it was intended to use rapid test kits to measure both DOC, POC and TSS right 

addition, however, the mandatory long heating time (2 hours) in sulphuric acid to break down 

organic compounds for the DOC and POC measurements disqualified this option due to 

logistic problems. Hence, only the TSS criteria were checked by direct measurement on site, 

using the HACH method 8006 (HACH, 2001), applicable to samples with a TSS content 

within the range 0-750 mg/l, and the pre-set calibration standards of the Odyssey DR2500 

spectrophotometer (HACH). 

2.3.3 Fulfilment of biological water quality test criteria 

A combination of indigenous harvested organisms and cultured surrogate species (>50 μm: 

Artemia salina; 10-50 μm: Brachiomonas submarina and/or Tetraselmis suecica) and 

heterotrophic bacteria was added to fulfil the biological water quality criteria described in 

Table 2. 

2.4 Test procedure 

2.4.1 Description of test cycle 

The water transfer pathways between tanks and the PureBallast System during each test cycle 

(including the control) is shown in Figure 1. The test line (blue lines) involved consecutive 

treatment of at least 200 m3 test water by the 50 μm filter unit and the Wallenius AOT unit 

transferring the test water from tank with prepared test water (WST) to a temporary holding 

tank (TT1) before a second treatment by the Wallenius AOT unit and transfer to a storage 

tank (TT2) for at least five days storage. The control line (red lines) was run by transferring at 

least 200 m3 of the same type of prepared test water from WST to the temporary holding tank 

(TT1) using the pump of the PureBallast system, but in by-pass of the treatment units before 

transfer to a second storage tank (CT2) for a five days storage time. 
NIVA 

11 

Figure 1. Transfer of test water during one test cycle with the PureBallast system including a 

test line (blue) and a control line (red). Sampling numbers are indicated by S1-S5. 

The test cycles were conducted with high salinity water. Each cycle lasted for a period of 5 

days. 

2.4.2 Measures to avoid cross-contamination during water transfer and sampling 

To avoid cross-contamination between consecutive test waters upon transfer between tanks, 

all pipelines were flushed for 2-3 min with drainage to sea at normal operating flow rate, prior 

to transfer of water to holding or storage tanks. Since the same holding tank 

To avoid cross-contamination during sampling the propeller, buckets, siphon overflow and 

plankton net were rinsed in sea water from 60 meters between each sampling. 

2.5 Sampling 

2.5.1 Assuring the representativeness of samples 

Before any samples were collected from any of the tanks at every sampling time the following 

procedure was carried out to assure that representative samples were withdrawn: 

1) The particulate content was homogenized using a hand-held outboard propeller of 3 hp 

or x hp at moderate speed directed alternately between the periphery and centre of the 

tank. 

2) The turbidity in different sections of each tank (upper part, middle part and bottom 

part, in both periphery and mid section) was measured by a handheld submersible 

probe (YSI – 600 OMS) during homogenization. When any turbidity measurement 

was within a 10 % deviation from the average turbidity of all measurements in the 

tank, sampling was started. 

WST 

516 m3 TT1 

231 m3

TT2 

205 m3

CT2 

205 m3

S1 

S2, S3 

S4, S5 

S4*, S5* 

50 μm filter 

Pump 

Benrad AOT Module 
NIVA 

12 

2.5.2 Sampling protocols 

2.5.3 Overview of sampling equipment 

An overview of sampling equipment and containers used and sampled volumes are given in 

Table 3. 

Table 3. Equipment and containers used for sampling and necessary and sampled volume for the 

individual parameters.

Parameter Sampling 

equipment 

Sample container Sample 

volume 

WST, CT2 

Sample volume 

TT2 

Temperature Temp. meter - - - 

pH pH probe - - - 

Dissolved oxygen DO probe - - - 

Salinity Probe - - - 

DOC Directly, 

grab 

Acid washed glass 

bottle 

100 ml 100 ml 

POC Directly, 

grab 

Acid washed glass 

bottle 

100 ml 100 ml 

TSS Directly, 

grab 

Clean plastic bottle 1000 ml 1000 ml 

Organisms ≥50 μm Sieving* 20 l 1 m3

Organisms ≥10-50 

μm 

Directly, 

grab 

Clean glass bottle 1000 ml 1000 ml 

Heterotrophic 

bacteria 

Coliform bacteria 

Enterococcus group 

bacteria 

Vibrio sp. 

Vibrio cholerae

Directly, 

grab Sterile glass bottle 1000 ml 1000 ml 

* A 20-litre grab sample (from WST and CT2) or 1 m3 collected through a siphon spillway 

(from TT2) is concentrated to a volume of 40-100 ml through a plankton net with diagonal 

dimensions of 50 μm. 
NIVA 

13 

2.5.4 Sample preservation 

Preservation methods and expected storage/holding times before measurement are shown in 

Table 4. All preservation and analysis were in accordance with the described methodology. 

Table 4. Preservation methods and expected storage/holding times before measurement 

(ISO/CD 5667-3, 2001). 

Parameter Preservation Max 

holding 

time 

Expected 

storage 

time 

Temperature - - 0 

pH - - 0 

Dissolved oxygen - - 0 

Salinity - - 0 

Dissolved organic 

carbon (DOC) 

Acidify to pH<2 with 1 ml 4 M H2SO4

per 100 ml, stored at 4oC 7 days 0-5 days 

Particulate organic 

carbon (POC) 

Acidify to pH<2 with with 1 ml 4 M 

H2SO4 per 100 ml,stored at 4oC in 

darkness 

7 days 

0-5 days 

Total suspended solids 

(TSS) 

Stored at 4oC in darkness 24 hours <24 hours 

Organisms ≥50 μm Stored at 4oC in darkness 6 hours < 2 h 

Organisms ≥10-50 μm Stored at 4o

C in darkness 6 hours < 6 h 

Heterotrophic bacteria 

Thermotolerant 

coliform bacteria 

Enterococcus group 

bacteria 

Vibrio sp. 

Vibrio cholerae

4o

C in darkness 6 hours < 6 h 

2.6 Analyses 

2.6.1 Chemical measurements 

Temperature 

Temperature was measured in situ using a calibrated thermometer. 

pH 

pH was measured in situ using a calibrated probe and pH-meter. 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured in situ using a calibrated probe and meter. DO is 

reported as mg O2/l. 

Salinity 

Salinity was measured in situ using a calibrated salioterm. 
NIVA 

14 

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 

DOC was measured by an accredited method based on Norwegian Standard NS-ISO 8245 (NIVA 

method G5-1) at NIVA after filtering the sample through a GF/F filter (0.7 μm). The sample was 

acidified with phosphoric acid and aerated with oxygen to remove inorganic carbon prior to injection 

into a quartz tube filled with a platinum catalyser at 680 o

C. The organic carbon compounds were 

oxidized to CO2 which was quantified using an NDIR detector (Phoenix 8000 TOC-TC analyser with 

sample carousel STS 8000) with oxygen as carrier. Detection limit was 0.5 mg C/l. 

Particulate organic carbon (POC) 

POC is calculated as the difference between the level of total organic carbon in the sample, 

measured on the non-filtered sample (see 4.2.1), and the measured DOC level of the same 

sample. 

Total suspended solids (TSS) 

A nucleopore capillary filter (0,4 μm) was dried at 40-50 oC for 2 hours and the tara wes 

determined by weighing on a micro weight (Sartorius 4503 Micro) equipped with an ion 

source (Static Eliminator Bar Pu 210 Item no. LC 9793) removing static electricity. The 

sample was filtered by suction through the filter, which again was dried at 40-50 oC for 2 

hours before being weighed on the micro weight. The TSS is represented by the weight 

increase. Lowest reported value: 0.1 mg/l. 

Trihalomethanes (THM) 

THMs were extracted in pentane and measured by the use of a gas chromatograph (American 

Public Health Association, 1989). 

2.6.2 Identification and quantification of viable organisms ≥50 μm 

2.6.3 Identification and quantification of viable organisms >10-50 μm 

2.6.4 Identification and quantification of viable bacteria 

2.6.5 Toxicity measurements of treated Ballast water 

The following standard tests were performed on the treated ballast water. 

-ISO 10253: Marine algal growth inhibition test 

- Forslag til Dansk Standard: Økotoksikologisk undersøgelse med krepsdyret Nitocra 

spinipes. Reproduksjonsmetode 

-OECD Guidelines for testing of chemicals (No. 203; Fish, acute toxicity test). 

-OECD Guidelines for testing of chemicals" (No. 215; Fish, juvenile growth test), 

adapted for marine species 

The methods used are given in the test reports which are included in the appendix 1. 
NIVA 

15 

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Fulfillment of chemical water quality criteria 

The temperature, salinity, pH and dissolved oxygen content were measured in the test water 

tank (WST) prior to treatment and daily in the storage tanks TT2 and CT2 in each test cycle. 

Measurements were not conducted during week-ends. The results are given in Table 5. 

As shown, the temperature in the initial water (WST) varied among the tests. Smal decreses in 

oxygen concentration were recorded during the test cycles. However, the oxygen content did 

never reach critical levels regarding survival of test organisms. 

Table 5. Temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen measurements in the test water tank 

(WST) prior to treatment and daily in the storage tanks TT2 and CT2 for each test cycle 

(measurements were not conducted during week-ends). 

WST TT2 CT2 

Day 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 

Parameter Unit 

Test cycle 1 

Temperature oC 9.8 9.8 8.80 8.30 7.40 7.20 6.90 - 7.90 7.50 6.70 6.50 6.30 

Salinity PSU 32.2 32.2 32.0 31.8 31.8 31.9 31.9 - 32.0 31.9 31.9 31.9 32.0 

pH 7.8 7.8 7.50 7.43 7.49 7.44 7.40 - 7.48 7.46 7.41 7.47 7.42 

Dissolved 

O2

% 85.0 85.0 83.10 78.10 78.60 73.60 72.80 - 84.30 73.20 76.50 71.10 70.40 

Test cycle 2

Temperature oC 7.60 7.60 7.00 - - 5.70 5.40 - 6.70 - - 5.30 5.00 

Salinity PSU 32.60 32.60 32.60 - - 32.40 32.30 - 32.80 - - 32.60 32.30 

pH 7.90 7.90 7.87 - - 6.80 7.88 - 8.01 - - 6.02 7.84 

Dissolved 

O2

mg/l 10.60 10.60 7.80 - - 7.80 6.28 - 6.68 - - 7.30 7.80 

Test cycle 3

Temperature oC 12.30 12.50 12.80 11.60 - - 10.60 13.00 11.50 11.10 - - 9.80 

Salinity PSU 32.60 32.60 32.60 32.60 - - 32.60 32.60 32.60 32.60 - - 32.60 

pH 8.03 8.04 8.01 7.91 - - 7.82 8.03 7.98 7.93 - - 7.87 

Dissolved 

O2

mg/l 9.90 11.00 8.90 8.70 - - 6.90 9.90 8.90 8.70 - - 6.80 

Test cycle 4

Temperature oC 12.00 11.90 11.80 11.70 - - 10.10 11.40 11.50 11.10 - - 9.80 

Salinity PSU 32.70 32.70 32.70 32.80 - - 32.70 32.70 32.70 32.70 - - 32.70 

pH 8.06 8.06 8.05 7.96 - - 7.75 8.08 8.08 7.96 - - 7.79 

Dissolved 

O2

mg/l 10.30 9.40 9.30 8.50 - - 5.10 9.60 9.10 8.50 - - 6.20 

Total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon 

(POC) measurements at day 0 in WST, TT2 and CT2 and at day 5 in TT2 and CT2 are shown 

in Table 6 (test cycle 1), Table 7 (test cycle 2), Table 8 (test cycle 3) and Table 9 (test cycle 

4). The required level of TSS, DOC and POC in the initial test water each test (as defined in 

Table 1) are given on the line above the measured values for the influent water to treatment 
NIVA 

16 

(WST). The required levels were fulfilled in all test cycles as indicated by the green coloured 

background. 

Table 6. Test 1. Chemical water quality (average and standard deviation of triplicate samples). 

Green background indicates that required level was fulfilled, yellow background partial fulfilment, 

while red background indicates failure to fulfil required level. Compounds were added to ensure 

fulfilment of the requirements; both a POC regulating compound (POCAdditive) and a DOC regulating 

compound (DOCAdditive) was added. 

TSS mg/l DOC, mg/l POC, mg/l TEST CYCLE 1 Average Stdev Average Stdev Average Stdev 

Additions to influent water - DOCAdditive = 1.2 kg. POCAdditive = 15.0 kg

Required level >1 - >1 - >1 - 

Influent water (WST) 51.3 3.9 2.6 0.2 4.8 2.8 

Table 7. Test 2. Chemical water quality (average and standard deviation of triplicate samples). 

Green background indicates that required level was fulfilled, yellow background partial fulfilment, 

while red background indicates failure to fulfil required level. Compounds were added to ensure 

fulfilment of the requirements; both a POC regulating compound (POCAdditive) and a DOC regulating 

compound (DOCAdditive) were added.

TSS mg/l DOC, mg/l POC, mg/l TEST CYCLE 2 Average Stdev Average Stdev Average Stdev 

Additions to influent water - DOCAdditive = 1.2kg POCAdditive = 7.2 kg

Required level >1 - >1 - >1 - 

Influent water (WST) 6.6 2.2 2.4 0.1 1.5 1.1 

Table 8. Test 3. Chemical water quality (average and standard deviation of triplicate samples). 

Green background indicates that required level was fulfilled, yellow background partial fulfilment, 

while red background indicates failure to fulfil required level. Compounds were added to ensure 

fulfilment of the requirements; both a POC regulating compound (POCAdditive) and a DOC regulating 

compound (DOCAdditive) were added. 

TSS mg/l DOC, mg/l POC, mg/l TEST CYCLE 3 Average Stdev Average Stdev Average Stdev 

Additions to influent water - DOCAdditive = 1.2kg POCAdditive = 4.8 kg

Required level >1 - >1 - >1 - 

Influent water (WST) 16.5 0.9 2.0 0.1 2.9 0.1 

Table 9. Test 4. Chemical water quality (average and standard deviation of triplicate samples). 

Green background indicates that required level was fulfilled, yellow background partial fulfilment, 

while red background indicates failure to fulfil required level. Compounds were added to ensure 

fulfilment of the requirements; both a POC regulating compound (POCAdditive) and a DOC regulating 

compound (DOCAdditive) were added. 

TSS mg/l DOC, mg/l POC, mg/l TEST CYCLE 4 Average Stdev Average Stdev Average Stdev 

Additions to influent water - DOCAdditive = 1.2kg POCAdditive = 7.2 kg

Required level >1 - >1 - >1 - 

Influent water (WST) 18.1 1.3 3.7 0.9 3.0 1.8 
NIVA 

17 

Treated waters in test cycle 3 were also sampled and analysed for AOX, EOX and 

trihalomethanes, a group of halogenated organic compounds. These compounds were 

analysed to clarify if the technology was capable of oxidizing organic substances to 

trihalomethanes. The dominating THM found in oxidized seawater is bromoform, which is a 

probable human carcinogen (USEPA 1996), known to bio-accumulate in aquatic animals. 

Bromoform is highly persistent in the environment. 

No THMs were found in the treated water. All the congeners were below the detection limit, 

in both test waters sampeled (Table 9). 

Table 9. Concentration of AOX, EOX, chlorophenols and trihalomethanes in treated water from 

Test 3 in control water and treated water immediately after treatment. 

 Unit Control water Treated water Inaccuracy % 

AOX mg/l 0.45 0.57 20 

EOX mg/l <0.050 <0.050 20 

2-Monochlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

3-Monochlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

4-Monochlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3-Dichorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,4+2,5-Dichlorophenol μg/l <0.20 <0.20 

2,6-Dichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

3,4-Dichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

3,5-Dichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,4-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,5-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,6-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

3,4,5-Trichlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

Pentachlorophenol μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

Trichloromethane 

(chloroform) μg/l <0.30 <0.30 

Tribromomethane 

(bromoform) μg/l <0.20 <0.20 

Dibromochloromethane μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

Bromodichloromethane μg/l <0.10 <0.10 

All compounds, except AOX, were below the detection limit. However, AOX was also 

detected in control water. The difference between the concentration in treated water and 

control water was not significant 
NIVA 

18 

Influent water, control water and treated waters in test cycle 3 were also sampled and 

analysed for Potential Bioaccumulating Substances (PBS) in accordance with OECD 117. 

There were no difference in PBS-level between treated and control water. A value of 1.4 was 

measure in both waters. 

Treated waters in test cycle 4 were also sampled and analysed for free and total residual 

oxidants (TRO) by the DPD-colourimetric method (Hach method 8021 for free chlorine and 

Hach method 8167). The results show that it is not possible to detect any production of 

residual oxidants measured as free or total chlorine in the treated water. 
NIVA 

19 

Table 10. Concentration of free and total residual oxidants in treated water from Test 4 in influent 

water just prior to treatment, and control water and treated water immediately after treatment. 

 Unit Influent water Control water Treated water

Free chlorine 

Parallell 1 mg/l -0.04 0.03 0.02 

Parallell 2 mg/l 0.00 0.01 0.01 

Parallell 3 mg/l 0.05 0.02 0.02 

Parallell 4 mg/l 0.02 - - 

Parallell 5 mg/l 0.00 - - 

Average± Standard 

deviation 0.01±0.03 0.02±0.01 0.02±0.01 

Total chlorine 

Parallell 1 mg/l 0.00 0.00 0.01 

Parallell 2 mg/l 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Parallell 3 mg/l 0.04 0.02 0.02 

Parallell 4 mg/l 0.02 - - 

Parallell 5 mg/l 0.02 - - 

Average± Standard 

deviation 0.02±0.01 0.01±0.01 0.01±0.01 

3.2 Fulfillment of the biological water quality criteria 

3.3 Operational performance of the PureBallast system 

A quality control was performed during each test by the site QA responsible person. Check 

points and operational parameters for documenting sufficient operation of the treatment 

technology were included and monitored in this quality control, including flow rate and 

voltage. Flow rate was read at the meter mounted on the effluent pipe from the treatment 

technology. Voltage was read on the voltmeters mounted on the treatment unit. 

• Test 1: The flow rate in test 1 varied in the range of 182-220 m3

/h during ballasting, 

and in the range of 191-205 m3/h during deballasting. The voltage was read to 150 V 

for each lamp. It was experienced some difficulties regarding the filtration. Frequent 

back-flushing was required. 

• Test 2: The flow rate in test 2 varied in the range of 188-242 m3/h during ballasting, 

and in the range of 194-205 m3/h during deballasting. The voltage was read to 150 V 

for each lamp. The back-flushing of the filter was reduced due to change of screening 

device. 

• Test 3: The average flow rate in test 3 varied in the range of 240-251 m3/h, and in the 

range of 250-251 m3/h during deballasting. The voltage was read to 150 V for each 

lamp. 
NIVA 

20 

• Test 4: The average flow rate in test 4 varied in the range of 245-254 m3/h, and in the 

range of 233-236 m3

/h during deballasting. The voltage was read to 150 V for each 

lamp. 

3.4 Biocidal effects on organisms ≥50 μm in minimum diameter 

3.5 Biocidal effects on organisms ≥10-50 μm in minimum diameter 

3.6 Bactericidal effects 

3.7 Ecotoxicological responses 

The ecotoxicity of treated ballast water was tested once with undiluted (100 %) samples on 

three trophic levels using marine acute and chronic tests with untreated control water as 

control. The tests and test results are summarized below. The complete test reports are 

presented in the Appendixes. 

Acute toxicity towards the juvenile turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) 

The acute toxicity of Treated Ballast Water towards Turbot was tested in accordance with the draft 

procedure of Phil McWilliams (Terra Environmental Laboratory A/S) (ref 1). The procedure 

follows the general guidelines of OECD 203 "Fish, Acute toxicity test" (ref 2). 

The testing of acute toxicity of Treated Ballast Water is required by the IMO G-8 guidelines for 

testing of treatment technology to be used aboard ships. The fish was exposed continuously for 96 

hours with full water exchange every day. 

The juvenile turbot was approximately 12 weeks old at the start of the test and had a mean weight of 

7.6 g. 20 fish were used in each aquarium with 20 l of medium. The temperature in the water varied in 

the range of 13.4-14.8o

C, and a light /dark cycle of 12:12 was used. 

The test water was taken directly from test tanks, after conditioning to test temperature 

Treated Ballast Water did not exert any observable effects on juvenile turbot. 

The results of the test can be expressed as follows: 

Parameter mg/l 95% confidence limits 

LC50 (96 h): >100 - 

NOEC based on mortality: ≥100 

LC50 The concentration causing 50 % mortality 

NOEC No observed effect concentration 

Chronic toxicity towards the juvenile turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) 

The chronic toxicity of Treated Ballast Water towards Turbot was tested in accordance 

with the "OECD Guidelines for testing of chemicals" (No. 215; Fish, juvenile growth 

test), adapted for marine fish. (ref 1). 
NIVA 

21 

The testing of chronic toxicity of Treated Ballast Water is required by the IMO G-8 guidelines for 

testing of treatment technology to be used aboard ships. The fish was exposed continuously for 28 

days with water exchange 3 times per week. 

The juvenile turbot was approximately 12 weeks old at the start of the test and had a weight in the 

range of 5 to 9 g. 20 fish were used in each aquarium with 20 l of medium. The temperature in the 

water was maintained in the range of 13,4 – 18,2o

C, and a continuous light was used. 

The test water was taken directly from test tanks, after condition to test temperature 

There was no mortality observed in the test, and the exposed fish did not behave or look different 

from control fish. Treated Ballast Water did not exert any significant effects on the growth rate of 

juvenile turbot as determined using ANOVA statistics. 

The results of the test can be summarised as follows: 

Parameter Control Treated Ballast water 

Average growth rate d-1 0.0063 0.0059 

Reproductive toxicity to the marine crustacean Nitocra Spinipes 

The reproductive toxicity of Treated Ballast water to the marine crustacean Nitocra spinipes has 

been investigated. The test was performed according to Draft guideline for Danish Standard: 

”Økotoksikologisk undersøgelse med krepsdyret Nitocra spinipe. Reproduksjonsmetode”. The test 

was performed as a Limit test with 100 % Treated Ballast water and using non treated ballast water 

as control water. 

The test was performed with 20 replicate vessels with 1 gravid female in each vessel. The vessels 

were incubated for 14 days at 20 °C. The number of alive offspring was then counted. There was 

no significant difference in number of offspring in Treated Ballast water when compared to 

control. 

Test result: 

Average number of offspring 

Test Reproduction Standard Deviation 

Control 21.9 9.4 

Treated Ballast water 20.5 9.1 

Growth inhibition of the marine alga Skeletonema costatum 

The inhibitory effect of Treated Ballast water on the growth of the marine diatom Skeletonema 

costatum, strain NIVA BAC1, has been investigated. The test was performed according to ISO 

10253: Marine algal growth inhibition test with Skeletonema costatum and Phaeodactylum 

tricornutum.
NIVA 

22 

Six replicate cultures of test algae in untreated and treated cultures were incubated on a shaking 

table at 20 ±2 °C, under continuous illumination. Growth was monitored by daily counting of cell 

numbers using a Coulter Multisizer. 

The growth rate in each culture was calculated from the increase in cell density from 0-48 and 0-72 

hours exposure. The analysis of difference between treatments was based on the exponential part 

of the growth curve (0-48 hours). There was no significant difference in growth rates between the 

untreated and treated Ballast water and the control sea water. Hence, for the treated Ballast water, 

the following results were obtained: 

Effects on growth rate Concentration 

% 

48 h ErC50

1

 >100 

NOEC2 ≥100 

No growth inhibiting effect on the marine alga Skeletonema costatum was caused by the 

Ballast water treatment process. 

Acute toxicity to the marine crustacean Acartia tonsa 

The acute toxicity of Treated Ballast water to the marine crustacean Acartia tonsa has been 

investigated. The test was performed according to ISO 14669: Determination of acute lethal 

toxicity to marine copepods (Copepoda, Crustacea). The test concentrations were in the range 32 

to 100 % of Treated Ballast water. 

The test was performed with four replicate vessels with 4-8 test animals for each test concentration 

and sixteen control replicate vessels. The vessels were incubated for 48 hours at 20 ±1 °C. 

Mortality was recorded after 24 and 48 hours. 

A mortality of 27% was observed at the highest tested concentration (100%). It should be 

commented that high death-rate in the control can be a problem with the test, as also experienced 

in the current test. This death-rate can give misleading results. No effects were observed in the test 

with the other marine crustacean Nitocra spinipes. It is therefore doubtful that the effect observed 

can be attributed to toxicity. 

Lack of mortality >50 % at any test concentration precludes estimation of LC50. Based on the 

results the following statement on the effect of Treated Ballast water on Acartia tonsa can be 

made: 

 Concentration (%) 95 % confidence limits 

48h LC50 * >100 - 

 

1

 ErC50: Concentration that causes 50 % reduction of the growth rate as compared to controls 2

 NOEC: No Observable Effect Concentration, i.e. the highest concentration that does not cause a significant 

inhibition of the growth rate 
NIVA 

23 

* LC = Lethal Concentration LC50 represents the concentration that results in lethality of 50 % of the test animals. 

Summary of toxicological tests 

Based on the conducted acute and chronic toxicity tests it is concluded that ballast water 

treated with the present technology do not provide hazard or risk to the marine ecosystem 

when released.