OCTOBER 2010 UPDATE: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR 

USE IN CALIFORNIA WATERS

PREPARED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION, 

MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

N. Dobroski, C. Scianni, L. Takata and M. Falkner

October 15, 2009
2

Purpose and Disclaimer

This update provides information regarding the ability and availability of ballast water 

treatment systems to meet California‟s performance standards for the discharge of 

ballast water. This update is produced by California State Lands Commission 

(Commission) staff as a follow-up to the legislatively mandated 2009 technology 

assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2009). This update is not a mandated report and 

does not provide Commission-approved recommendations, nor does this update 

constitute an endorsement or approval of any treatment system or system manufacturer

by the Commission. The Commission does not approve ballast water treatment 

systems. It is the responsibility of the vessel owner/operator to select treatment systems 

that will ensure that ballast water is discharged in compliance with all applicable laws, 

regulations and permits. The update is solely intended as a resource for stakeholders

interested in ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters. 

Introduction

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Act) of 2006 expanded the Marine Invasive 

Species Act of 2003 to more effectively address the threat of nonindigenous species 

introduction through ballast water discharge. The Act charged the Commission to 

implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and to prepare a 

report assessing the efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including water 

quality, of currently available ballast water treatment technologies. The performance 

standards regulations were adopted in October 2007 (see Table 1), and the first 

technology assessment report was approved by the Commission in December 2007 

(see Dobroski et al. 2007). 

In response to the recommendations in the 2007 report, the California Legislature 

passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which delayed the initial 

implementation of the performance standards from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010

(see Table 2). Additionally, SB 1781 required an update of the technology assessment 

report by January 1, 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009). The 2009 report presented data 

indicating that at least two ballast water treatment technologies had demonstrated the 
3

capability of complying with California‟s performance standards for the discharge of 

ballast water. As such, the report recommended that the Commission proceed with the 

initial implementation of California‟s performance standards beginning January 1, 2010 

for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 metric tons (MT).

Table 1. California‟s Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards

Organism Size Class Performance Standard[1,2]

Organisms greater than 50 

μm[3] in minimum dimension

No detectable living organisms

Organisms 10 – 50 μm in 

minimum dimension

< 0.01 living organisms per ml[4]

Living organisms less than 

10 μm in minimum dimension

Escherichia coli

Intestinal enterococci

Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae

(O1 & O139)

< 103bacteria/100 ml

< 104 viruses/100 ml 

< 126 cfu[5]/100 ml

< 33 cfu/100 ml

< 1 cfu/100 ml or 

< 1 cfu/gram wet weight 

zoological samples 

[1]

See Table 2 for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim Performance Standards.

[2]

Final discharge standard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms 

for all organism size classes. 

[3] Micrometer – one-millionth of a meter

[4] Milliliter – one-thousandth of a liter

[5] Colony-forming unit – a measure of viable bacterial numbers

Table 2. Implementation Schedule for California‟s Performance Standards

Ballast Water Capacity 

of Vessel

Standards apply to new 

vessels in this size class 

constructed on or after[1]

Standards apply to all 

other vessels in this size 

class beginning in[1]

< 1500 metric tons 2010 2016

1500 – 5000 metric tons 2010 2014

> 5000 metric tons 2012 2016

[1]

The standard applies to vessels in this size class as of January 1 of the year of compliance. 
4

As per Public Resources Code Section 71205.3, the Commission must update the 

ballast water treatment technology assessment report for the Legislature 18 months 

prior to each of the implementation dates for the performance standards. The next 

report is due to the Legislature on July 1, 2010 in advance of the implementation date

for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT on January 

1, 2012. 

Given the rapid evolution and advancement of ballast water treatment technologies, 

Commission staff believed it would be useful to complete a brief update of available 

treatment technologies to meet California‟s performance standards prior to the 

completion of the July 1, 2010 report. This update is intended to provide vessel 

owners/operators and other interested parties with the most up-to-date information 

available on system development, with a focus on performance (i.e. efficacy). For more 

information on the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of ballast water 

treatment systems for use in California waters, as of January 2009, see Dobroski et al. 

(2009). This update presents data gathered as of October 1, 2009. 

Treatment Systems

Forty-one ballast water treatment systems were reviewed for this update (Table 3). In 

January 2009, Dobroski et al. (2009) reviewed 30 systems. The field of ballast water 

treatment is rapidly evolving and expanding as existing systems are modified and new 

parties enter the market. Many of these systems have conducted or are in the process 

of conducting system evaluation to assess compliance with California‟s performance 

standards and to receive approvals under the International Maritime Organization 

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and 

Sediments (Convention) (see IMO 2005). While system approvals granted under the 

IMO testing regime do not provide legal authority for system operation in U.S. or 

California waters, the IMO process does provide vessel owners/operators and 

interested stakeholders with important data on system operation and performance. IMO 

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) approvals of systems using active 
5

substances and Type Approvals from flag state administrations as of October 1, 2009, 

are included in Table 3. 
6

Table 3. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System 

Name

Technology 

Type Technology Description Approvals

21st Century Shipbuilding 

Co. Ltd. Korea Blue Ocean Guardian combination filtration + plasma + UV

Alfa Laval Sweden PureBallast combination filtration + advanced oxidation 

technology (hydroxyl radicals)

IMO Basic and Final 

Type Approval 

(Norway)

Aquaworx ATC GmbH Germany AquaTriComb combination filtration + ultrasound + UV IMO Basic

ATLAS-DANMARK Denmark ABTS Combination filtration + biocide (ANOLYTE + 

CATHOLYTE)

ATG Willand United 

Kingdom combination hydrocyclone + UV

Auramarine Ltd. Finland Crystal Ballast physical UV-C irradiation

COSCO/Tsinghua 

University China Blue Ocean Shield combination hydrocyclone + filtration + UV IMO Basic

Ecochlor USA EcochlorTM

BWTS combination filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) IMO Basic

EcologiQ USA/Canada BallaClean biological deoxygenation

Electrichlor USA Model EL 1-3 B chemical biocide (electrolytic generation of 

sodium hypochlorite)

Environmental 

Technologies Inc. (ETI) USA BWDTS combination ozone + sonic energy

Ferrate Treatment 

Technologies LLC USA Ferrator chemical biocide (ferrate)

Greenship Ltd Netherlands Sedinox combination hydrocyclone + electrolytic 

chlorination IMO Basic and Final

Hamann Evonik Degussa Germany SEDNA System combination hydrocyclone + filtration + biocide 

(Peraclean Ocean)

IMO Basic and Final, 

Type Approval (Ger.)

Hi Tech Marine Australia SeaSafe-3 physical heat treatment Queensland EPA
7

Manufacturer Country System 

Name

Technology 

Type Technology Description Approvals

Hitachi Japan ClearBallast combination coagulation + magnetic separation 

+ filtration IMO Basic and Final

Hyde Marine USA Hyde Guardian combination filtration + UV WA Conditional, 

Type Approval (U.K.) 

Hyundai Heavy Industries 

Co. Ltd. (1) Korea EcoBallast combination filtration + UV IMO Basic Approval

Hyundai Heavy Industries 

Co. Ltd. (2) Korea HiBallast combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralizing agent

JFE Engineering Corp./ 

Toagosei Group Japan JFE-BWMS combination

filtration + biocides (sodium 

hypochlorite) and neutralizing 

agent (sodium sulfite)

IMO Basic 

Kwang San Co. Ltd. Korea En-Ballast combination

filtration + electrochlorination + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate)

MARENCO USA combination filtration + UV WA General 

Approval

Maritime Solutions Inc. USA combination filtration + UV

MH Systems USA BW treatment 

system combination deoxygenation + carbonation

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Japan Hybrid System combination filtration + electrolytic chlorination

Mitsui Engineering Japan Special Pipe combination mechanical treatment + ozone IMO Basic

NEI USA Venturi Oxygen 

Stripping (VOS) combination deoxygenation + cavitation Type Approval (Liberia) 

NK-O3 Korea BlueBallast chemical ozone IMO Basic and Final

ntorreiro Spain Ballastmar combination

filtration + electrochlorination + 

neutralization (sodium 

metabisulphite)

Nutech 03 Inc. USA SCX 2000, Mark 

III chemical ozone
8

Manufacturer Country System 

Name

Technology 

Type Technology Description Approvals

OceanSaver Norway OceanSaver

BWMS combination filtration + cavitation + nitrogen supersaturation + electrodialysis

IMO Basic and Final, 

Type Approval (Nor.)

OptiMarin Norway OptiMarin 

Ballast System combination filtration + UV

Panasia Co. Ltd Korea GloEn-Patrol combination filtration + UV IMO Basic 

Qingdao Headway Tech 

Co. Ltd. Norway OceanGuard BMWS combination filtration + ultrasound + electrocatalysis

Resource Ballast 

Technologies South Africa Unitor BWTS combination cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration IMO Basic

RWO Marine Water 

Technology Germany CleanBallast combination filtration + advanced electrolysis IMO Basic and Final

SeaKleen (Hyde) USA SeaKleen chemical biocide (menadione)

Severn Trent DeNora USA BalPure chemical

electrolytic generation of sodium 

hypochlorite + neutralizing agent 

(sodium bisulfite)

WA Conditional

Siemens UK/USA/Ger. SiCure combination physical separation + 

electrochlorination

Sunrui CFCC China Sunrui BWMS combination

filtration + biocide (sodium 

hypochlorite) + neutralizing agent 

(sodium thiosulfate)

Techcross Inc. Korea Electro-Cleen chemical

electrochemical oxidation + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate)

IMO Basic and Final, 

Type Approval 

(Korea)
9

System Efficacy

Commission staff compiled and reviewed all available literature and performance data in 

order to assess system potential to meet California‟s performance standards (see Table 

1 for performance standards). Methods of evaluation did not differ from previous reports 

(Dobroski et al. 2007, Dobroski et al. 2009). Newly obtained data were generally 

presented according to organism size class (e.g. greater than 50 μm, 10 – 50 μm). 

However, some of the older data included in this update were presented by organism 

type (i.e. zooplankton, phytoplankton). For these older data, staff evaluated zooplankton 

abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm 

in size), and phytoplankton abundance was evaluated on par with organisms in the 10 –

50 μm size class. These substitutions were solely for the purpose of previous reports 

and this update, and will not be applicable for compliance verifications that take place 

after the performance standards go into effect. Ultimately, Commission staff gathered 

efficacy data on 20 of the 41 technologies reviewed in this update (Table 4). Staff 

evaluated the data in light of the best available methods and techniques for assessing 

organism concentration and viability for each of the size classes in California‟s 

performance standards.

Same as the 2009 technology assessment report (Dobroski et al. 2009), Commission 

staff assessed compliance with the bacterial standard by using a proxy group of 

organisms (culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria – hereafter culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the larger group of all bacteria. Culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria were selected as a proxy for total bacteria because, unlike total 

bacteria, there are reliable, well-accepted standard methods to both enumerate and 

assess viability of these organisms. Culturable heterotrophic bacteria are a well-studied 

group of bacteria, and research is being conducted to examine the relationship between 

their populations and the larger pool of bacterial species (see Dobroski et al. 2009, 

Dobbs, F., pers. comm. 2008). For this update, Staff examined the data on treatment 

system performance at reducing culturable heterotrophic bacteria to levels within the 

California standard of 1000 bacteria (in this case expressed as colony-forming units) per 

100 ml of ballast water. 
10

As with previous reports, analysis of viral species remains challenging. While several 

representative organisms exists for viruses (see Dobroski et al. 2009), their relationship 

to the greater population of all viral species is more tenuous than for bacteria (confer 

Culley and Suttle 2007). For the purposes of this analysis, Commission staff believes 

that no widely accepted technique or proxy is available, and thus systems were not 

evaluated for compliance with the viral standard. 

Staff summarized the potential for all reviewed treatment systems to meet both the IMO 

and California performance standards (as assessed using best available methods) in 

Table 4. A positive assessment for the purpose of this report, however, does not 

constitute Commission approval or endorsement, nor does it relieve the vessel 

owner/operator of the responsibility for complying with California‟s performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water. Potential treatment system customers 

should consult extensively with vendors to ensure that thorough system verification 

work has been conducted, and that the system is appropriate for the type of vessel of 

interest, under normal ballasting conditions. 
11

Table 4. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy

Systems with at least one replicate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y” in the appropriate column in Table VI-1. 

Non-compliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were 

designated as “unknown.” Blank cells represent systems with incomplete data. Shading indicates systems had no data available.

IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA1,2 IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA

21st Century Shipbuilding N/A

Alfa Laval* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

1,36,43,44,46

Aquaworx ATC GmbH N/A

ATG Willand N/A

ATLAS-DANMARK N/A

Auramarine Ltd. N/A

COSCO/Tsinghua Univ. N/A

Ecochlor* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 35,41,47

EcologiQ N/A

Electrichlor N/A

ETI Y N N/A N 31,32,33,34

Ferrate Treatment Tech. N/A Y N Y N Y Y 7

Greenship Ltd. Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y 11,50

Hamann Evonik Degussa* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

15,40,49,55

Hi Tech Marine N/A 18

Hitachi Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y 39

Hyde Marine* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y

4 Y4 Y4 Y4

29,30,58,59

Hyundai Heavy Ind. (1) N/A

Hyundai Heavy Ind. (2) N/A

JFE Eng.Corp./TG Corp. N/A

Kwang San Co. Ltd. N/A

1 Bacteria were assessed through examination of aerobic culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony forming units). 

2 No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability of viruses at this time.

3 Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section

4 Concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

* New data available for this update

Unknown

References

Enterococci V. cholerae 3

Unknown Unknown

Manufacturer > 50 μm 10 - 50 μm < 10 μm (bacteria) E. coli
12

Table 4 (continued). Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy

Systems with at least one replicate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y” in the appropriate column in Table VI-1. 

Non-compliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were 

designated as “unknown.” Blank cells represent systems with incomplete data. Shading indicates systems had no data available.

IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA1,2 IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA

MARENCO Y Y Y N N/A Y 27,28,57

Maritime Solutions Inc. N/A

MH Systems* Y

5 Y5 N/A Y Y Y N 13,19

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. N/A

Mitsui Engineering Y N Y Unknown N/A Unknown 21,23,24

NEI Y Y Y Unknown N/A N Y Y Y Y Y Y 51,52,53

NK-03 N/A

ntorreiro N/A

Nutech 03 Inc. Y Y Y N N/A Y Y

4 Y4 Y4 Y4 Y4 Y4

17,48,60

OceanSaver Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

2,45,54

OptiMarin Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

4,22,42,56

Panasia Co. Ltd. N/A

Qingdao Headway Tech. N/A

Resource Ballast Tech. N/A

RWO Marine Water Tech* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

12,38

SeaKleen (Hyde)* Y Y Y Y N/A N Y Y Y

4 Y4

3,6,14,30,61

Severn Trent DeNora Y Y Y Y N/A Y 16

Siemens N/A

Sunrui CFCC N/A

Techcross Inc.* Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Y4

25,26,37

1 Bacteria were assessed through examination of aerobic culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony forming units). 

2 No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability of viruses at this time.

3 Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section

4 Concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

5 Selected species only (sea urchin larvae, brine shrimp)

* New data available for this update

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown Unknown

Enterococci V. cholerae

References Manufacturer 3

> 50 μm 10 - 50 μm < 10 μm (bacteria) E. coli
13

Conclusions

Based on the available data, at least seven ballast water treatment systems: AlfaLaval, 

Ecochlor, Hamann Evonik Degussa, Hyde Marine, OceanSaver, OptiMarin, and 

Techcross have demonstrated the capability to comply with California‟s performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water. AlfaLaval (Norway), Hyde Marine (United 

Kingdom), Hamann Evonik Degussa (Germany), OceanSaver (Norway), and Techcross 

(Korea) have received Type approval from flag state administrations. All seven systems 

are commercially available at this time. We expect several more systems to meet 

California‟s standards in the near future. 

The seven systems that have demonstrated the capability of complying with California‟s 

performance standards have at least one testing replicate, at either full-scale landbased or shipboard scale that demonstrates compliance with the standards. Vessel 

owners/operators should closely scrutinize the available data, however, to ensure that 

systems will meet California‟s standards on a regular basis given the configuration of 

the vessel and piping/water flow requirements.

The field of ballast water treatment technology appears to be evolving rapidly. Within 

ten months of the release of our most recent report (Dobroski et al. 2009), the number 

of systems which have presented data demonstrating the potential to meet California‟s 

performance standards has more than tripled - from two to seven. We expect to see a 

great increase in the available data on system performance in the near future, 

particularly as systems are installed on operational vessels beginning January 1, 2010 

for the initial implementation of California‟s performance standards for vessels with a 

ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT. 
14

Literature Cited

1. Alfa Laval. 2006. Annex – PureBallast Review Information.

2. Botnen, H. 2005. Preliminary test results of OceanSaver ballast water treatment 

system on MV Hoegh Trooper. Section of Applied Environmental Research, 

Universitetsforskning Bergen. Letter to Gunnar Baerheim, OceanSaver AS. 

September 19, 2005.

3. Caceres, V., C.E. Orano-Dawson, and G. Kananen. 2007. Shipboard testing of 

the efficacy of SeaKleen® (Vitamar Inc.) as a ballast water treatment to eliminate 

non-indigenous species aboard the tanker Seabulk Mariner in Pacific waters. A 

Final Report to Vitamar LLC and Garnett Inc. January 2007.

4. Cangelosi, A.A., I.T. Knight, M. Balcer, D. Wright, R. Dawson, C. Blatchley, D. 

Reid, N. Mays, and J. Taverna. 2001. Great Lakes ballast technology 

demonstration project biological effectiveness test program (includes MV Regal 

Princess trials). Final. GloBallast Symposium and Workshop Submission March 

26-30, 2001.

5. Culley, A.I., and C.A. Suttle. 2007. Viral community structure. Chapter 36 (pp. 

445-453) In Hurst, C.J. (ed.), Manual of Environmental Microbiology, Third 

Edition. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.

6. Cutler, S.J., H.G. Cutler, J. Glinski, D. Wright, R. Dawson, and D. Lauren. 2004. 

SeaKleen ®, a potential product for controlling aquatic pests in ships‟ ballast

water. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International 

Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: 

Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

7. Daly, L.J., D. Reinhart, V. Sharma, L. Walters, A. Randall, and B. Hardman. 

2005. Final Report. Laboratory-scale investigation of ballast water treatment 

using Ferrate. NOAA Award # NA04OAR4170147

8. Dobbs, F. (personal communication, 5 November 2008)

9. Dobroski, N. L. Takata, C. Scianni, and M. Falkner. 2007. Assessment of the 

Efficacy, Availability, and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment 

Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State 

Legislature. 

10. Dobroski, N., C. Scianni, D. Gehringer, and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 Assessment 

of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California 

State Legislature.
15

11. Dogterom, J., G.J. Jansen, and H.J. Wopereis. 2005. Study report. Greenship‟s

Ballast Water Management System. Technologische werkplaats. Noordelijke 

Hogeschool Leeuwarden.

12. Echardt, J. and A. Kornmüller. 2009. The advanced EctoSys electrolysis as an 

integral part of a ballast water treatment system. Proceedings of the IWA 5th

Conference on Oxidation Technologies for Water and Wastewater Treatment, 

March 30 – April 1, 2009, Berlin.

13. Felbeck, H. 2009. Tests of the effects of “TriMix” on bacteria and invertebrates 

were run using E. coli, Enterococcus sp., sea urchin larvae, brine shrimp.

14. Gregg, M.D. and G.M. Hallegraeff. 2007. Efficacy of three commercially available 

ballast water biocides against vegetative microalgae, dinoflagellate cysts and 

bacteria. Harmful Algae, 6:567-584.

15. Hamann AG. Solutions for a better environment. Ballast water treatment SEDNA 

(brochure). 

16. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, B.C. Nielsen, N.C. Ferm, D.J. Lawrence, J.C. Perrins, 

and A.C.E. Rhodes. 2006a. Final Report. Efficacy Testing of the Severn Trent De 

Nora Balpure® System. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. March 13, 2006.

17. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Dinnel, R.W. Gensemer, W.A. 

Stubblefield, G.M. Ruiz, J.A. Kopp, M.L. House, and W.J. Cooper. 2006b. Ozone 

treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry, biology, and 

toxicity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 37-55.

18. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast water trial on M.V. Sandra Marie. 9th May 1997 

Sydney to Hobart.

19. Husain, M., H. Felbeck, D. Altshuller, and C. Quirmbach. 2004. Ballast water 

treatment by de-oxygenation with elevated CO2 for a shipboard installation – a 

potentially affordable solution. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 

2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 

21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO 

London.

20. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2005. Ballast Water Management 

Convention International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' 

Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 138

21. Japan Association of Marine Safety. 2007. Special Pipe Ballast Water 

Management System. Report of 1st on-board test (revised).
16

22. Jelmert, A. 1999. Testing the effectiveness of an integrated Hydro cyclone/UV 

treatment system for ballast water treatment. Accessed: 11/9/07, Website: 

www.optimarin.com/test1999Austevoll.htm

23. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fukuto. Development of the Special Pipe Hybrid System, one 

of the most promising ballast water management systems.

24. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the 

„Special Pipe System‟ as a potential mechanical treatment for ballast water. In: 

Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water 

Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. 

GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

25. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2008. 

Preliminary Report for the Type Approval Test Used by Electro-Clean Ballast 

Water Management System. Project No. PI49300. 3 March 2008.

26. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2009. 

Heterotrophic bacteria test results performed by KORDI during the land-based 

tests for the IMO final approval. 

27. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006a. 

Phase 1 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system.

28. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006b. 

Phase 2 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system.

29. Mackey, T.P. and D.A. Wright. 2002. A filtration and UV based ballast water 

treatment technology: Including a review of initial testing and lessons learned 

aboard three cruise ships and two floating test platforms. Paper presented at 

ENSUS 2002. Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability.

University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, School of Marine Science and Technology.

Dec. 16-18, 2002. 

30. Mackey, T.P., D.A. Wright, and R. Dawson. 2003. Ongoing development of two 

ballast water treatment technologies based on full-scale testing in Baltimore 

Harbor. Presented at the annual Marine Environmental Engineering Technology 

Symposium. In pursuit of Cleaner Seas. Arlington, VA. January 2003.

31. Maddox, T.L. 2000. Final Report. Ballast water treatment and management with 

ozone and sonics. National Sea Grant NA96RG0478.
17

32. Maddox, T.L. 2004a. Phase II Final Report. Ballast water treatment and 

management with filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant 

NA03OAR4170008.

33. Maddox, T.L. 2004b. Phase III Final Report. Field test demonstration of improved 

methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and 

sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150.

34. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final Report. Full scale, land based field test 

demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring 

utilizing ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070.

35. Maranda, L., R.G. Campbell, D.C. Smith, and C.A. Oviatt. 2005. Final Report. 

Summer field test of the Ecopod aboard the M/V Atlantic Compass. Graduate 

School of Oceanography. University of Rhode Island. Submitted October 31, 

2005.

36. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005a. Harmful aquatic 

organisms in ballast water: Information to be considered by the Review Group. 

Submitted by Sweden. MEPC 53/2/6. 15 April 2005.

37. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005b. Application for basic 

approval of active substances used by Electro-Clean (electrolytic disinfection) 

ballast water management system. Submitted by Republic of Korea. MEPC 

54/2/3. 16 December 2005.

38. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2006. Information (Update of 

MEPC 53/2/11 Annex 1) provided by Elga Berkefeld GMBH, Lückenweg, 5, 

29227 Celle, Germany and its subsidiary RWO Marine Water Technology, 

Leerkämpe 3, 29259, Bremen, Germany. MEPC 55/2/17, Annex 1. 7 July, 2006.

39. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Application for Basic 

Approval of Active Substances used by Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System 

(ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. 57/2/2. 7 September 2007.

40. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2008. Final report of the 

land-based testing of the SEDNA®-System, for Type Approval according to 

Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (April – July 2007). Final report 

of the shipboard testing of the SEDNA®-System, for Type Approval according to 

Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (June - December 2007). 

BSH/M5101.

41. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2009. Final report of the 

land-based testing of the Ecochlor®-System, for type approval according to 

regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (April – July 2008). 
18

42. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008a. Land based testing of the 

OptiMarin ballast water management system of OptiMarin AS – Treatment effect

studies. Final Report. Report SNO 5659-2008.

43. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008b. Land based testing of the 

PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB – approved test cycles. Report 

SNO 5667-2008.

44. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008c. Shipboard testing of the 

PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB. Report SNO 5617-2008.

45. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008d. Land based testing of the 

OceanSaver ballast water management system of MetaFil AS – Final Report 

(report no: -272249). 28 January 2008.

46. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2009. Additional shipboard 

testing of the PureBallast treatment System of Alfa Laval/Wallenius Water AB.

Report SNO 5850-2009. 

47. Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Moran, D. Outram, D. 

Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide to ballast 

water flora and fauna in bench scale assays. Final Report to Ecochlor Inc. 

(Charles Goodsill, VP).

48. Perrins, J.C., J.R. Cordell, N.C. Ferm, J.L. Grocock, and R.P. Herwig. 2006. 

Mesocosm experiments for evaluating the biological efficacy of ozone treatment 

of marine ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1756-1767.

49. SGS Institut Fresenius. 2009. Report on the sample received on 1st April 2009. 

Test Report 1367519_V 1.0. Prepared for Evonik Degussa GmbH.

50. Siefert, E. and K. Siers. 2007. Landbased test report – Test cycle summary. 

Institut fur Umwelttechnik.

51. Tamburri, M.N., B.J. Little, G.M. Ruiz, J.S. Lee, and P.D. McNulty. 2004. 

Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen StrippingTM as a ballast water treatment to 

prevent aquatic invasions and ship corrosion. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. 

Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D 

Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph 

Series No. 15. IMO London.

52. Tamburri, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Evaluations of a ballast water treatment to 

stop invasive species and tank corrosion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology 

Conference & Expo and Ship Production Symposium, Houston, TX.
19

53. Tamburri, M., G.E. Smith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard 

evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3rd

International Conference on Ballast Water Management. Singapore, 25-26 

September, 2006. 

54. UNIFOB AS. 2008. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for shipboard tests of 

ballast water management systems. 

55. Veldhuis, M.J.W., F. Fuhr, J.P. Boon, and C.C. Ten Hallers-Tjabbers. 2006. 

Treatment of ballast water: how to test a system with a modular concept? 

Environmental Technology, 27:909-921.

56. Welschmeyer, N., S. Bollens, S. Avent, E. Landrau, T. Voss, and R. Fairey. 

2004. Onboard Testing of Ballast Treatment Efficiency: Summary Report, Moss 

Landing Marine Laboratories, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental 

Studies, San Francisco State University. Prepared for the California State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and California State Lands Commission 

(CSLC). July 2004.

57. Welschmeyer, N., C. Scianni, and S. Smith. 2007. Ballast water management: 

Evaluation of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system. Moss Landing 

Marine Laboratories.

58. Wright, D.A. 2009. Shipboard trials of Hyde „Guardian‟ system in Caribbean Sea 

and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5th– October 7th, 2008. Final report to Hyde 

Marine and Lamor Corp. April 2009.

59. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and S.M. Moesel. 2007. A test of 

the efficacy of a ballast water treatment system aboard the vessel Coral 

Princess. Marine Technology, 44(1): 57-67.

60. Wright, D.A., C. Mitchelmore, J. Bearr, R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and M. 

Olson. 2008. Shipboard Testing of Nutech-O3 ozonation system as a method for 

Ballast Water Treatment. A Final Report to Nutech-O3. June, 2008.

61. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, V. Caceres, C.E. Orano-Dawson, G.E. Kananen, S.J. 

Cutler, and H.G. Cutler. 2009. Shipboard testing of the efficacy of SeaKleen®as 

a ballast water treatment to eliminate non-indigenous species aboard a working 

tanker in Pacific waters. Environmental Technology, 30(9): 893-910.