Click here to find info to send email to CQD Click here to find info to send email to Miller Associates
Updates on Hot Topics/EventsCQD Home PageListing of past CQD articlesConference reporting on past eventsExternal links to other maritime companiesMiller Associates home pageSend email or call CQD or Miller

International Ballast Water Treatment
R&D Symposium
 IMO London 26-27 March 2001


Complete Schedule of topics & speakers

Opening Address
(March 26:  Day 1)

Ballast Water Treatment Overview (March 26, Day 1)

Technology Summary



Technology Summary

Specifics on technologies presented at the International BW Treatment R&D Symposium in London March 26-27, 2001 are outlined in the following section.  The technologies are grouped in terms of marketability to facilitate understanding by members of the shipping industry.  The categories are:

    1.  Available – currently being used on commercial vessels.

    2. Tested on Ships – technology has undergone shipboard trials at sea but are not yet on the market.

    3. Not Tested on Ships – technology has undergone in-lab testing, pilot testing, no testing (theory only) or some other stage of development.

    4. Research Facilities – Some presentations discussed research facilities being set up for testing various technologies.  These are not designed to be marketed but to test systems to verify their viability.


Quick Links to articles (for ease of navigation):

Overview of Technology Options

Ballast Water (BW) Treatment Options

1.  Technologies Currently Available for Ballast Water Treatment

2.  Technologies Tested aboard Ships

3.  Technologies Not Tested aboard Ships

4.  Research Facilities

Return to Top of Page


Overview of Technology Options

Before the systems were presented, Dr. Geoff Rigby, Dir. at Reninna Pty Ltd in Charlestown, NSW Australia described a number of types of ballast water technologies.  He also commented on how he felt the systems fared in terms of Technically Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness. 

Rigby described Technical Efficiency in terms of water replacement and/or the ability to kill or render biological organisms inactive.  His definition of Cost Effectiveness was based on capital cost recovery factor of 0.149 and included a basis of operating costs for bulk carrier, LNG carrier and containerships.  Prices are in Australian dollars/cents and are represented as per cubic meter of ballast water.

 

Ballast Water (BW) Treatment Options and how they rate on the Rigby scale:

Open Ocean Ballast Water Exchange:

Currently the main option for ballast water management.  Rigby said this was the cheapest but poses a very serious risk of excessive organism invasion.

Technical efficiency (TE)- 95-99% water replacement. 

Cost effectiveness (CE)- 3.7 A. cents/m3


Heating with Ballast Water tank flushing/exchange:

Technology uses heat from the ship (or another source) to heat the water in the tanks to temperatures that would kill nuisance organisms.

TE    could be close to 100%

CE w/o flushing 5.6 A. cents/m 3

CE w/flushing  9.1 A. cents/m3


Filtration:

Using a filter system to strain out nuisance species.  Efficiency varies by screen diameter in microns.

TE   82-95% at 50 microns, 74-94% at 25 microns

CE   11.7 to 32 A. cents/m3


Chemicals:

Types include hypochlorite (chlorine), hydrogen peroxide and others.

TE  not determined

CE  24 A. cents/m3 to 40 A. dollars/m3

 


Hydrocyclones:

Systems that use voraxial, venturi or cyclonic technology to separate out the nuisance species.

TE  not determined due to limited results/data

CE  not determined due to limited results/data


Ultra Violet (UV) radiation:

TE - Zapping the ballast water with UV radiation requires pre-filtration and is ineffective for certain organisms, such as microbes in cysts, says Rigby.

CE w/ filtration 28 to 84.2 A. cents/m3

Return to Top of Page


The following reports are based on presentations made at the International BW Treatment R&D Symposium in London March 26-27, 2001.  Opinions and estimates are those of the Presenter's unless otherwise noted.  CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry makes no assertions as to the validity of the statements or opinions and cannot be held responsible for any of the information or claims contained therein.  We make every effort to report as accurately as possible, as presented by the speakers during the session.  For further information, contact persons are supplied.


The brief outline given for each technology is based on three criteria (as described by Alec Bilney on Day One of the conference) – Reliability, Cost Effectiveness and Biological Effectiveness in a SHIPBOARD environment.

 

I. Technologies Currently Available for Ballast Water Treatment

The Optimarin System –as presented by Birgir Nilsen, OptiMarin AS, March 27, 2001

Email: bnilsen@optimarin.com

Web: www.optimarin.com

 

Technology – Ultra Violet radiation with Venturi Separation.  Installed and operating on the C/S Regal Princess. 

  • Reliability – control panel minimizes crew workload, easy to install, expect replacement of UV tubes every 3 yrs.
  • Cost Effectiveness – Capital costs $105,000, low operating costs.
  • Effectiveness – not reported.

Return to Top of Page


II. Technologies Tested aboard Ships

 

Ballast Water (BW) Treatment by Filtration – as presented by Dr. Jose Matheickal, Singapore Environmental Technology Inst., March 26, 2001

Email: jtmath@rti.org.sg

Web: www.eti.org.sg

Technology – Screen Filtration systems tested on ship-mounted and barge-mounted ballast filtration systems.

  • Reliability – small sized, works directly at the source, use existing BW pumps.  Current "off the shelf" technologies need significant modifications to use on ships.  Questions remain as to how much crew workload must be involved in keeping screen systems operating and left alone for long periods of time.
  • Cost Effectivness – No report on costs.
  • Effectiveness – Smallest problem organisms such as cysts from dinoflagellates may get through.  Increased effectiveness on screening out nuisance species as screen size goes down.

 

BW Treatment by Heat (with Flushing)– as presented by Dr. Geoff Rigby, Reninna Consulting, March 26, 2001

Email: rigby@mail.com

Technology – Using heat from main engine cooling system on a ship to kill organisms.  Follow up the process with flushing.  Shipboard trials completed aboard the 140,000 DWT BHP Bulk Carrier, M/V Iron Whyalla in 1993 and later. 

  • Reliability – Multiple design options are possible.
  • Cost Effectiveness –practical and cost effective option. Least expensive option available other than ballast water exchange at sea.
  • Effectiveness – voyage time is important, treatment needs to be completed in 4-6 hrs.   Water needs to be as hot as 350 C.

 

BW Treatment by Heat (with Recycle)– as presented by Dr. Douglas Mountfort, Cawthron Institute, March 26, 2001

Email: doug@cawthron.org.nz

Web: www.cawthron.org.nz

Technology – Using heat from main engine system or steam coils on a ship to kill organisms.  Process recycles water from tank through the system to increase effectiveness.  Shipboard trials completed aboard Chemical Tanker M/T Iver Stream in Feb' 01 and M/V Union Rotoma in 1998.

  • Reliability – recycle process needs 96-120 hr. journeys.
  • Cost Effectiveness – $US 0.37 to $US 0.47, costs higher than previously expected.
  • Effectiveness – Very effective for free-swimming species, limited for cysts stage or organisms in sediment.

 

Great Lakes BW Technology Demonstration Project – as presented by Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, NEIMW Institute, March 27, 2001

Email: acangelo@nemw.org

Technology – Fieldwork and shipboard testing of a range of technologies including filtration, cyclonic separation and ultra violet radiation.  Four years of project work including ship testing on C/S Regal Princess and M/V Algonorth.

 

Conclusions from their presentation paper are quoted as follows:

For Filtration:

  • Effectiveness – "Filtration alone (40micrometers) delivers substantial reductions in live zooplankton and some forms of phytoplankton.  It does not reduce total culturable bacteria."

For Cyclonic Separation:

  • Effectiveness – "CS alone does not reduce phytoplankton and bacteria, and only slightly reduces live zooplankton density after a delay period."

For UV (very much influenced by turbidity):

  • Zooplankton effectiveness – highly significant reduction in live zooplankton.
  • Phytoplankton effectiveness – significant reductions

 For Cyclonic Separation combined with UV:

  • Effectiveness – "Highly significantly enhanced the more subtle and variable effects of cyclonic separation (alone) on zooplankton and added UV (alone) effects on phytoplankton and bacteria."

For Filtration combined with UV:

  • Effectiveness – "UV significantly enhanced the already substantial and highly consistent effectiveness of filtration (alone) against zooplankton and some phytoplankton."

 

Regarding UV treatment and Bacteria:

  • "UV treatment at the point of discharge in addition to UV treatment at intake is advisable to counteract bacterial regrowth and enhance mortality effects on zooplankton."

 

 

Return to Top of Page


III. Technologies Not Tested aboard Ships

 

BW Treatment by Heat (Using Heat Exchangers)– as presented by Dr. Peilin Zhou and Vassilios Lagogiannis, Univ. of Newcastle, March 26, 2001

Email: p.l.zhou@newcastle.ac.uk

Web: www.marinetech.ncl.ac.uk

Technology – Using heat from a heat source other than the main engine (such as heat exchanger) to create steam heat during the de-ballasting process.  Tested as far as feasibility studies.

  • Reliability – labor intensive machinery would require about 24 sq. meters space for use on a tanker.
  • Cost Effectiveness – Capitol costs - @ 200,000 pounds sterling.  Running costs = 0.16$/ton addition to fuel.
  • Effectiveness – not reported.

 

 

BW Treatment by Ozonation – as presented by Aage Bjorn Andersen, Det Norske Veritas, March 26, 2001.

Email: aage.bjorn.Andersen@dnv.com

Technology – Taking ozonation systems that are used in the water treatment industry and adapting them for ships.  Tested as far as laboratory studies.

  • Reliability – Seawater and ozone may react to produce corrosive compounds.
  • Cost Effectiveness – potentially very cost effective.
  • Effectiveness – If organisms in ballast water consume the oxidants, this could reduce effectiveness.

 

 

BW Treatment by De-oxygenation – as presented by Wilson J. Browning III, Browning Transport Management, Inc., March 26, 2001

Email: will@wjbrowning.com

-Technology – Using vacuum chamber to remove dissolved oxygen from ballast water during ballasting.  Tested in environment to simulate shipboard studies.

  • Reliability – short retrofit, easy to install in new vessels, and operationally practical.  Low crew workload as system is monitored via satellite connected shipboard computer.
  • Cost Effectiveness –Parts @ $200,000, Install @ $200,000. Rate = 72 ton/hr for 30,000 DWT ship, scaleable up to 1000 ton/hr for 150,000 DWT ship.
  • Effectiveness – ATP tests show 86% kill rate on all biomass (including bacteria) after 10 day low oxygen condition in tanks.  Microscopic counting measured 100% kill rate of zooplankton in 3 days.  Not effective on dinoflagellates, cysts and benthic organisms.  In such cases, the system is designed to use in conjunction with another BW treatment system. Freestanding for killing zooplankton.

 

 

BW Treatment by Electro-ionisation – as presented by Dr. Joseph Aliotta, Marine Environmental Partners, Inc., March 26, 2001

Email: mark@mepi.net

Technology – Using gas generators to pump in gases (O, N and CL) to kill organisms in tanks.  Tested as far as pilot testing – shipboard testing intended for summer '01 aboard a Carnival Cruise line vessel.

  • Reliability – low crew workload, much easier to operate than chemicals, UV or ozone systems.  Adaptable to high volumes and many ship designs.
  • Cost Effectiveness – not reported.
  • Effectiveness – Highly effective for bacteria and pathogens – 2 minute run time at 60 gals/min provided 95% effectiveness.  "Able to kill all organisms with additional contact time." Could be designed for shore-based applications.
  • Note - Designed to treat "in-tank" with the goal of 95% kill rate for ballast water discharged.  This may be an advantage over systems which treat at loading and have a potential problem of organism re-growth.

 

 

BW Treatment by Gas Supersaturation – as presented by Dr. Anders Jelmert, Institute of Marine Research, Norway, March 26, 2001.

Email: anders.jelmert@imr.no

Technology – Subject biota to "gas bubble trauma," an affliction more commonly known to divers as "the bends."  Tested as far as laboratory studies.

  • Reliability – Good marks regarding safety for ship and crew.  No chemicals or byproducts of concern that would create negative environmental impacts.  Retrofit to numerous ship designs.  Low maintenance.
  • Cost Effectiveness – low cost.
  • Effectiveness – Works better with larger sized organisms.

 

 

SeaKleen – a Natural Biocide for BW Treatment – as presented by Dr. David Wight, Univ. of Maryland, March 27, 2001

Email: wright@cbl.umces.edu

Technology – Chemical treatment using SeaKleen, a natural biocide.  Tested as far as laboratory studies, shipboard treatment pending in May of 2001.

  • Reliability – Convenient, safe, low risk to humans when compared to chlorine. 
  • Cost Effectiveness – Economical – only 100 kilos needed (cost $0.20/ton) for 50,000 cubic meters of BW.  Equipment cost of US$ 1,600.
  • Effectiveness – estimated to be effective over a broad range of biota including organisms in the sediment.

 

 

Peraclean Ocean – a Potential BW Treatment Option – as presented by Dr. Rainer Fuchs, Degussa AG, March 27, 2001

Email: rainer-g.fuchs@degussa.com

Web: www.degussa.com

Technology – Hydrogen peroxide-based chemical treatment.  Tested as far as laboratory studies.

  • Reliability – Handle similar to other disinfecting fluids.  Applied via injection during BW intake.
  • Cost Effectiveness – refused to report numbers on costs due to patent/legal issues.
  • Effectiveness – Kills very small organisms such as viruses, cysts, etc. but not effective for bigger marine species.

 

 

BW Treatment with Available Biocides – as presented by Mr. Bill McCracken, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, March 27, 2001

Email: mccrackw@state.mi.us

Technology – BW treatment with currently available biocides such as hypochlorite (CL) gluteraldehyde and copper ion.  Tested in feasibility and laboratory (gluteraldehyde).

With regards to chlorine and copper ion:

  • Reliability – safe and simple (CL in liquid form only).  CL may be corrosive to tanks.  Chlorine treatment must be followed by de-chlorination.
  • Cost Effectiveness – economical.
  • Effectiveness – lethal over broad range of species.

 

 

 

 

 

BW Treatment R&D Activities in Japan – as presented by Mr. Takeaki Kikuchi, Japan Assoc. of Marine Safety, March 27, 2001

Email: kikuti@oak.ocn.ne.jp

Technology – Fieldwork and shipboard testing of gas injection (natural air) into ballast water using a "special pipe" during ballasting operations.  Ten years of project work and a land based system to simulate shipboard environment.

  • Reliability – designed to be simple to operate, harmless, safe, and easy to install. Flow rates were 5m/sec.
  • Cost Effectiveness – low cost.
  • Effectiveness – with 10 passages through gas injector, kill ratios were 100% for zooplankton, 75% for phytoplankton and 97% for bacteria.  Phytoplankton kill rate increased to 95% if ballast water remained in tanks for one week.

 

 

BWT Systems by Maritime Solutions – as presented by Mr. Richard Fredricks, Maritime Solutions, March 27, 2001

Email: info@maritimesolutionsinc

Technology – two stage process using separation by voraxial flow followed by UV or chemical biocide treatment.  Feasibility tested, shipboard testing to commence in May 2001 on 39,00 DWT M/V Cape May.

  • Reliability – designed to be crew friendly, compact and scaleable to all types of ships.
  • Cost Effectiveness – not reported.
  • Effectiveness – not reported.

 

 

Effects of Cyclonic Separation and UV Treatment – as presented by Dr. Terri Sutherland, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, March 27, 2001.

Email: sutherlandt@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Technology – two stage process using cyclonic separation followed by UV treatment.  Tested in laboratory studies.

  • Reliability – not reported.
  • Cost Effectiveness – not reported.
  • Effectiveness – 95% - 100% mortality in bivalves.  Zooplankton, barnacles, and smaller species require higher dosages of UV. 

Return to Top of Page


IV. Research Facilities

 

Testing of BW Technologies at Large Scale – as presented by Dr. Thomas Waite, Univ. of Miami, March 27, 2001

Email: twaite@miami.edu

Waite and his colleagues designed a simulated shipboard BW treatment system at their facilities at the University of Miami.  They are currently in the process of testing a number of technologies alone and in combination with each other.  These include Filtration, UV and Hydrocyclone systems.  Results should be expected after June 2001.

 

US Pacific Coast Ballast Water Treatment Project - as presented by Mr. Scott Smith, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, March 27, 2001

Email: smiths@dfw.wa.gov

Smith discussed pending construction on a research facility based on the US West Coast for pilot scale testing, shipboard installations, establishing standardization protocols and other projects related to ballast water treatment.

 

Simulations of Ballast Water Treatment – as presented by Dr. Arne E Holdo, Univ. of Hertfordshire, March 27, 2001

Email: a.e.holdo@herts.ac.uk

Holde discussed research at the Univ. of Hertforshire related to ballast water and modeling for BW exchange in open ocean, modeling of BW system based on the Optimar design and others.

Return to Top of Page

 

Legal Disclaimers and Policy Statements

This page last updated by Miller Associates: Thursday, June 05, 2003

Click here to go to CQD Index page

Hot Events

CQD Index

Search Journals

Website Address:
www.CQDJournal.com

or contact us at Miller Associates, USA
phone (973) 377-0085

CQD World Wire Events

Maritime Links

Miller Associates

Contact Us