You are on page 1of 102

DECISION-MAKING TOOL FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

andreas cappelen
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology
Master Thesis 30 credits 2012
Master Thesis on Ballast Water Management Systems
The student is to develop a model for comparison of ballast water management systems (BWMS)
based on objective criteria relevant for their intended use onboard ships.

The final report must include the following items:

1. Overview of the different treatment technologies and systems available in the market
and that are under development.
2. Identification of the critical processes of the treatment technologies and acquire
information about them from the BWM Systems manufacturers.
3. List of selection criteria for a generalized feasibility study of treatment systems relevant
for ships’ ballast water operations, together with a scoring range that is possible to use
in an empirical and objective way.
4. Identification of a method to weigh, in a similar manner, the criteria listed in 3.
5. A standard report and model to present the results of a potential study.

i
Preface

The thesis presented is a central part of the technical master program in water technology at
UMB – University of Life Science. It represents work equivalent to 30 ECS credits or one
semester of work. The work presented should include central parts of the skills the student
should be expected to have acquired after 5 years of technology studies at university level.

I would like to thank advisers: Odd Ivar Lekang, Harsha Ratnaweera at UMB, Jon Hem at SINTEF,
Jad Mouawad, Ingrid Sigvaldsen, Qinglan Wu, Anna Piotrowska and Håkon Vestheim-Vigeland at
DNV, Gunnar Bærheim at Oceansaver and Mark Riggio at Hyde Marine for assistance.

Oslo, May 14th 2012

_____________________________

Andreas Cappelen

ii
List of figures

Figure 1 Chinese mitten crab invasion .......................................................................................................... 1


Figure 2 The ballast water cycle .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 ULCC tanker ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4 Cruise ship ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5 Implementation schedule for the IMO ballast water act (Trümpler, 2010) .................................... 6
Figure 6 Status of ratification of the ballast water Convention by March 2012 (DNV 2012) ...................... 7
Figure 7 UV Radiation Chamber .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 8 Difference in reduction of UV intensity during a 7 day trial with LP and MP – lamp (Eikebrokk B. ,
2008)............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 9 Generation process of ozone (NKCF, 2009) .................................................................................. 19
Figure 10 UV light induced mechanism of electron-hole pair in a TiO2 particle with the presence of
organic compound and H20 ......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 11 Photocatalytic reaction of TiO2 (Sheoran, 2008) ........................................................................ 25
Figure 12 Illustration of a Boll & Kitch candle-filter (Bollfilter, 2006) ......................................................... 29
Figure 13 vacuum back-flush filter from "Filtersafe" (Filtersafe, 2012) ...................................................... 31
Figure 14 Distribution of HOCL and OCL- in solutions with different pH (Morris, 1951) ............................ 37
Figure 15 Flow diagram of Pure ballast 2.0 ................................................................................................. 41
Figure 16 Flow diagram of the Hyde Guardian BWTS ................................................................................. 45
Figure 17 Hyde Guardian BWMS (Hydemarine, 2010) ................................................................................ 46
Figure 18 Flow diagram NKO3 ..................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 19 Filter with vacuum cleaning of the filter-mesh (Oceansaver, 2012) ........................................... 54
Figure 20 Disinfectant unit C2E (Oceansaver, 2012) ................................................................................... 54
Figure 21 Optimarin BWMS......................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 22 Electrocleen flow diagram ........................................................................................................... 61
Figure 23 N.E.I VOS flow diagram................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 24 Flow diagram, describing the decision-making tool.................................................................... 69
Figure 25 Support sheet for consultant ...................................................................................................... 71
Figure 26 Support tool for customer ........................................................................................................... 72
Figure 27 Output of the qualification stage ................................................................................................ 74
Figure 28 An example of a harmonization between a treatment system and a customer’s needs ........... 77
Figure 29 An example of a transparency between two systems and the customer's needs ...................... 80
Figure 30 An example of distribution of performance/ need between two treatment systems and a
customer’s needs ........................................................................................................................................ 81
Figure 31 Qualities the customer has weighted.......................................................................................... 82

iii
List of tables

Table 1 Requirement standard D2 (IMO, imo.org, 2011) ............................................................................. 8


Table 2 Effect of Turbidity on UVT, UV Absorbance, UV Intensity, and Exposure Time (Clarke, 2011)...... 13
Table 3 Oxidation potential in v of different chemicals (Seoran, 2008) ..................................................... 20
Table 4 Reaction rates for the oxidation through O3and OH• for different organic molecules (Andreozzi,
1999)............................................................................................................................................................ 23

iv
Contents
Master Thesis on Ballast Water Management Systems ................................................................................. i
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction to ballast water operations on a vessel ................................................................... 3
1.2 Standards for ballast water management ..................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Regulations ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.2.3 Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 9
2 Core Technologies used for BWTS....................................................................................................... 10
2.1 UV radiation: ............................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Theory.................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Byproducts........................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Limiting process factors ....................................................................................................... 13
2.1.4 Pros/ cons for using UV radiation for treatment................................................................. 15
2.1.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Deoxygenation of water with inert gas ....................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Theory:................................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.2 Limiting Process factors ....................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3 Byproducts........................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.4 Pros/ Cons for using deoxygenation.................................................................................... 17
2.2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18
2.3 Ozone........................................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Theory.................................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.2 Byproducts:.......................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3 Limiting process factors:...................................................................................................... 22
2.3.4 Pros/ cons of using ozone as a disinfectant. ....................................................................... 22
2.3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 22
2.4 Advanced oxidation processes. ................................................................................................... 23
2.4.1 Theory.................................................................................................................................. 23
2.4.2 Byproducts........................................................................................................................... 25
2.4.3 Process limitations............................................................................................................... 25

v
2.4.4 Pros/ cons for using AOP ..................................................................................................... 26
2.4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 28
2.5 Filters ........................................................................................................................................... 29
2.5.1 Theory.................................................................................................................................. 29
2.5.2 Byproducts........................................................................................................................... 31
2.5.3 Limiting process factors ....................................................................................................... 31
2.5.4 Pros/ cons for using filters: .................................................................................................. 32
2.5.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 32
2.6 Electro-chlorination ..................................................................................................................... 34
2.6.1 Theory.................................................................................................................................. 34
2.6.2 Byproducts........................................................................................................................... 35
2.6.3 Limiting process factors ....................................................................................................... 36
2.6.4 Pros/ cons for using electro- chlorination ........................................................................... 38
2.6.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 38
2.7 Manufactured systems used for ballast water treatment .......................................................... 40
2.7.1 Alfa Laval – Pure Ballast 2.0................................................................................................. 41
2.7.2 Hyde Marine – Hyde Guardian ............................................................................................ 45
2.7.3 NKCF – NK03 ........................................................................................................................ 49
2.7.4 Oceansaver – Mark 2 ........................................................................................................... 53
2.7.5 Optimarine .......................................................................................................................... 58
2.7.6 Techcross: Electr- Cleen....................................................................................................... 61
2.7.7 N.E.I – Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) ............................................................................... 65
3 Decision-making tool ........................................................................................................................... 69
3.1 Model description: ...................................................................................................................... 69
3.2 Stage 1 - Qualification ................................................................................................................. 73
3.3 Stage 2 – Weighting of criteria .................................................................................................... 75
3.4 Stage 3 - Matching (calculations) ................................................................................................ 77
3.5 Stage 4 – Visualization ................................................................................................................. 79
3.6 Output ......................................................................................................................................... 83
4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 85
5 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 87

vi
Abstract
The International Maritime Organizations ballast water convention is expected to be ratified in
2012. As a result of this, the shipping industry will need to adjust their vessels to meet the new
requirements. The industry (ship-owners) will need to consider aspects related to installing
appropriate ballast water management systems in their fleets. At present there is limited
knowledge and experience in the industry in relation to installing and using treatment
technology for ballast water. Therefore, a decision-making tool covering these aspects would
be useful.

The purpose of this thesis is to produce a model that will assist ship-owners in finding the most
suitable or optimal treatment system by focusing on meeting the critical and less critical
operative patterns of the vessel. The output of the model is a scoring system, which shows the
degree of harmonization and provides a transparent comparison between the ship-owner’s
needs and the characteristics of some of the leading systems on the market today. The result
was accomplished by conducting an objective comparison of ballast water management systems
based on pre-defined criteria relevant for their intended use onboard ships.

The decision-making tool should be able to cover the needs of a majority of the vessel classes,
both newly built and retrofits, which will be required to treat ballast water.

The decision-making tool is based on a four step process: Qualification, Weighting, Matching
and Visualization.

Before matching treatment systems and needs, a qualification stage is conducted to discard
systems that fail to meet essential requirements. Only systems with no critical mismatches
make it through to the matching phase.

Furthermore, a weighting stage provides the information needed to ascertain the degree of
harmony and the transparency between the needs of the ship-owner and the characteristics of
each qualified treatment system.

vii
Calculations are done, and a summary of how the ship-owner has weight the five categories will
be presented. The score value is based on the average weighting, by the ship-owner, of each
criterion in a category. Configurations of the weighting are produced until the summarized
category values represent the desired priorities.

The defined system characteristics are weighted in this thesis with a weighting support tool
attached to each criterion, justified and explained in this study. This is done by acquiring
information about the systems and the core technology behind the treatment method.

The core technologies used for ballast water treatment are: UV radiation, electro-chlorination,
ozone, advanced oxidation processes, deoxygenation and filtration. Their strengths and
weaknesses are described in this thesis.

The decision-making tool will provide the ship-owner with knowledge of how he values different
categories of criteria related to ballast water treatment and what systems on today’s market
will provide the best match for his needs.

The study concludes with the fact that it is possible to design a tool that will apply to the needs
of vessels with different ballast water arrangements, operative routines and size of ballast tanks.
The next stage of the process should be verification of the model.

viii
Terminology

Word Description
BWMS Ballast water management system – same as a BWTS
BWTS Ballast water treatment system, a composition of one or more
units that will treat ballast water
MEPC Marine environnemental protection comité
UV Ultraviolet radiation
IMO International maritime organization
System Ballast water treatment system
Bio invaders Alien species of animals or microorganisms that can harm the
local environment
Active substance A substance or organism, including a virus, that has specific
action on or against aquatic organisms and pathogens.
Pre-treatment The first part of several treatment steps in a BWTS, often
based on physical separation.
Neutralizer e.g thio sulfide – a degradation catalyst.
Opaque film Natural organic matter that has grown on to the UV Quartz
sleeves
Fouling Contamination on the quartz sleeves caused by the burning of
organic matter or chemical reactions between the metals/ in
the water and the radiation
Wire mesh weaved wire netting with a set clearance in the horizontal,
vertical or both directions.
TRO The total residual oxidant – a collective name for the quantity
of disinfectants in the water – transformed into chlorine.
AOP Advanced oxidation process –generation of free radicals
NOM Natural organic matter, generic term for microorganisms,
algae and humus.
Retrofit An installation on an already sailing vessel. This can complicate
the installation process, because the BWTS has to be adjusted
to the vessels limitations and design.
New-build An installation of a BWTS in a vessel that is not yet sea- borne.
BWTS have more fliexibility regarding the installation process
when the design is not yet set.
OH• In relation to a AOP process, this is the sign for a free hydroxyl
radical
D2-requirement A treatment standard that will apply vessels when the ballast
water convention gets ratified.

ix
Background

The introduction of bio invaders to an eco-system is an irreversible process and the second
biggest environmental threat to marine biodiversity after over exploitation (IMO, imo.org, 2011).
The introduction of the Chinese mitten crab in Europe and North America (Figure 1) is an
example of the consequences of discharging untreated ballast water. In response to the
discovery of the major impact ballast-water discharge has on marine life by introducing bio
invaders to an ecosystem in 1988 (Williams, 1988), the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) has started the process of introducing a convention (IMO, RESOLUTION A.868(20), 1997)
to limit the discharge of untreated long haul ballast water. The convention will make it
mandatory for ships to treat all ballast water discharged, when operating in foreign waters.

The IMO ballast water convention, which was only adopted in


2004 aims to introduce ballast water treatment systems -
BWTS to ships in phases (in groups organized by building date
and size of ballast tanks).The convention is expected to be
ratified in 2012 and implemented in 2013.

The combination of the new requirements and the sudden


urgent need for treatment systems which meet the IMO
deadlines, creates a treatment system supplier market for
opportunists. The given time constraint, numerous suppliers
on the marked, and little operational data available, makes
the selection process of an adequate treatment system very
challenging and time-consuming for ship-owners with little
previous experience in the area of ballast water treatment.

Figure 1 Chinese mitten crab invasion DNV wants to offer a consultancy service for ship-owners
giving them an objective way of deciding what system, on
today’s market, best meets their needs.

1
This has created a need for a decision-making tool, based on set requirements. The tool should
facilitate an objective and less time-consuming comparison between the systems and should
show the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems and provides matches between
ship-owner’s needs and systems that are available.

2
1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction to ballast water operations on a vessel

Ships conduct ballast-water operations during unloading cargo for several reasons, which are to:

 Keep the vessel stabile


 Improve maneuvering abilities
 Trim the propeller
 Reduce stress on the hull
 Achieve sufficient draft
 Anti-heeling

The reason why ballast water is necessary, is that a vessel is designed for sailing with cargo, and
when there is no cargo, ballast water is a weight substitute for the lack of cargo weight (figure 2).
The amount of ballast water satisfies the minimum of weight needed for sailing conditions
(Dokkum, 2008)

Figure 2 The ballast water cycle

3
Vessels with ballast water can be categorized
in two groups; High or low–ballast water
dependent vessel.

The high ballast dependent vessels are


typically bulk, and tankers (figure 3). They sail
one way with a full load of cargo and return
with no cargo. The differential weight between
Figure 3 ULCC tanker the sailing conditions creates a need for
normalization. The solution for this is ballast
water.

Low ballast dependent vessels are typically


container, general cargo and passenger vessels
(figure 4). They sail with cargo or passengers
both ways, giving a small differential weight
between the sailing conditions. Their only

Figure 4 Cruise ship application of ballast water is for trim.


(Advisory, 2011)

A ship is required to have two ballast pumps in case one is out of order due to it being a critical
component on the ship (DNV, S1, 208). Usually one ballast pump at a time is used and the same
pumps are used for ballasting and de-ballasting. There are no requirements for the capacity
relation of the pump and the volume of the tanks. Attempting to generalize, a normal vessel has
the capacity to conduct ballast water that weights 33% of the total dead weight tonnage - DWT
of the vessel. Ballasting and de–ballasting is a process which is carefully executed with loading
and unloading to balance the ship, it is therefore critical that the pumps are dimensioned to
handle the flow needed for this operation. The ballast pump capacity should reflect how long
the unloading time the vessel is expected to have for a minimal downtime at port. A high ballast
dependent vessel should, therefore, be able to conduct a full ballast tank in the time it uses to
unload the cargo. A low ballast dependent vessel can therefore utilize a smaller ballast pump,

4
due to the fact that a low ballast dependent vessel very seldom fills the total capacity of the
ballast tanks (Kvamme, 2010).

Corrosion and accumulation of mud and biofilm in ballast tanks is a major problem and the
ballast tanks are therefore coated with paint and mud removed regulary. The consequences of
corrosion are very costly and might be a life-time limitation of the vessel. Large amounts of mud
will reduce the permitted load of the vessel and biofilm growth can reduce the hydraulic
capacity of the pipes and increase the corrosion rate. (Anwar, 2010)

Some ballast tanks – wing and double bottom tanks - can to some extent discharge and intake
water through valves under the water line of the vessel. This is a good safety measure if both
pumps fail. However, it can also be a way to bypass the treatment system and discharge
untreated water to save the operational costs related to using the ballast water treatment
system, if the action is not alarmed and logged.

On vessels with treatment systems which only treat on intake or discharge called - one way
treatment, gravity-based intake or discharge can potentially be conducted. This cannot be done
in relation to the treatment process, due to the requirement of a stabile flow through the
treatment unit. It is important to note that some one-way treatment systems need to be able to
add neutralization before discharge – needing to pass through a contact point.

Being able to use gravity-based discharge is an important energy saving measure for vessels
with large ballast tanks. As much as 40% of the total ballast water can be in-taken/ discharged
with gravity, saving a potential of 40% on energy related to pumping, sometimes as much as
100 000 m3 water in one ballast operation (Mouawad, 2012).

The anatomy of ballast water systems are very different from vessel to vessel, but many of them
are based on 2 sea-chest intake points and a ring line passing through all the tanks separated
with valves, making it possible for internal distribution with a few smaller feed pumps.

5
1.2 Standards for ballast water management
The international maritime organization (IMO), developed in 1997 an initiative to reduce the bio
invasion called "Guidelines for the control and management of ship’s ballast water, to minimize
the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens" (IMO, RESOLUTION A.868(20), 1997).
It took yet another 7 years before it became adopted as an international convention in 2004.
The purpose of the convention is to prevent, minimize and prevent transfer of organisms from
one ecosystem to another.

1.2.1 Implementation
The international convention calls for ships to implement measures to meet standards in
accordance with a gradually implemented schedule described in figure 5.

Figure 5 Implementation schedule for the IMO ballast water act (Trümpler, 2010)

All ships delivered after January 1010(<5000m3) and 2012 (>5000m3) must have a BWTS. Ships
made before 2009 must implement BWTS after 2016 (<1500m3, >5000m3) and 2014 (1500m3 -
5000m3) satisfying D2 standard.

The convention has struggled with a slow acceptance rate, needing signatures from 30 flag
states representing 35% of the world tonnage. The current status is that the requirement of
over 30 signed flag states has been reached, however the convention is still missing 9% of the
world tonnage. Full international compliance is expected to be reached before 2013. Due to the
slow acceptance rate the implementation dates may be out of date, requiring adjustments.

6
Figure 6 Status of ratification of the ballast water Convention by March 2012 (DNV 2012)

An international approach to standardize requirements, as the IMO ballast water management


standards, is preferable to all parties conducting ballast water. In spite of this, some flag states
complicate the standard approach by introducing local requirements as well (figure 6). This has
been done by some US states and the state of Victoria in Australia. They call for stricter
requirements or prohibit ballast water discharge entirely. (ABS ballast water treatment advisory
2011)

7
1.2.2 Regulations

Regulation D1: D1 is a transition regulation which aims to limit the chance of bio invasion until enough
vessels have BWTS installed and the development of treatment systems has reached the point where
they can meet D2 regulations in any water conditions. It is today the most effective measure against bio
invasion. It states that ships must discharge ballast water 200 nautical miles from land or preferably in
deep sea conditions (because the chances of the microorganisms survival is reduced in deep waters far
from the coast). The exchange can be done with one of three possible methods, implemented in the
ballast water management plan of each ship from a signed flag state.

1. Sequential method – emptying and refilling each individual tank. The task is accomplished when
95% of the water has been exchanged.
2. Flow through method – replacing water by adding and simultaneously overflowing the tank. The
procedure is successful when 3 times the tank volume has been pumped through.
3. Dilution method – filling over the top while simultaneously pumping the water out. Also here 3
times the tank volume must be pumped through the ballast tanks.

However Germanischer Lloyd argues that the ballast water exchange is unsafe for the ship and crew and
does not remove 100% of the microorganisms in the ballast tanks (Germanischer-Lloyds, 2010)

Regulation D2: D2 treatment standard is meant to be implemented for vessels made after 2012 with
ballast pumps over 5000m3/h. However, because the convention lacks ratification by another 9% of the
world tonnage, this requirement is delayed. Table 1 underneath describes the IMO D2 treatment
requirements.

Table 1 Requirement standard D2 (IMO, imo.org, 2011)

The given requirements of indicator bacteria


and microorganisms of different size should
give a protection against bio-invasion.

8
1.2.3 Guidelines
G8 – Approval of BWMS: Guideline number 8 targets the approval process of BWMS, helping
administrations to comply with the D2 regulation. It is also a guideline for manufactures and
ship-owners to help them in the evaluation procedure. The intention of the G8, is to screen out
treatment systems that will not comply with the D2 regulation when tested in full-scale practical
conditions, on board a vessel. The standard focuses on ship, environment and crew safety.

G9 – Active substances: If the treatment system uses biocides or active substances for treating
the ballast water or the treatment produces a chemical substance, the particular biocide must
undergo an external evaluation from a board of toxicologists assigned by IMO. Active substance
means a substance has specific action on or against aquatic organisms and pathogens. This is to
secure that the substance. used or produced, does not cause any harm to the environment. The
objective of G9 is to address acceptability of active substance with regard to HMS and the
aquatic environment.

9
2 Core Technologies used for BWTS
Most BWTS are based on technologies used for treatment of drinking water, such as UV–
radiation, physical separation, ozone treatment and disinfection by oxidation. Some have a
more industrialized background, such as electro chemical generation of hydrogen, or inert gas.
A common denominator is that their new application includes limited space and time
constraints.

Most of these technologies have originated from treatment of freshwater. Hence limited
research has been done on the effects of the application in seawater conditions.

The purpose of the overview of technologies applied in BWTS, is to introduce the reader to how
the technology works, some of the technologies limiting factors and a qualified conjecture of
the suitability of the technology for BWT applications.

10
2.1 UV radiation:

2.1.1 Theory
Ultra violet “UV” radiation is a common method for treating drinking water and has been in use
for the last 100 years.

The treatment is done in a chamber where radiation is emitted from several light sources (figure
7). The inactivation process consists of light waves penetrating the cell and nucleus, inflicting
damage in the DNA. Disinfection with UV does not kill microorganisms, it only inactivates them.

UV radiation is applied for several purposes, transmitting light waves in different frequencies.
The only relevant frequency for inactivating
microorganisms in water is the UV–C range,
also called the germicidal range. This range
outputs light with frequencies in the
spectrum of 200 – 300 nm. Optimizations
show that the most efficient frequency is

Figure 7 UV Radiation Chamber


254 nm (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

The effectiveness of the disinfection is


based on the UV dose that the microorganisms are exposed to. The dose equals the intensity
multiplied by the contact time between the radiation and the water and is measured in mJ/cm2.
In drinking water treatment, a dose of 30 - 40 mJ/cm2 is considered a hygienic barrier against
bacteria and virus (Eikebrokk, et. al, 2008). This is due to the UV being the last treatment step,
and acting as the last of minimum two hygienic barriers. In ballast water treatment, greater
variances of water quality is introduced to the UV chamber making values of over 100 mJ/cm2
normal for compliance with the IMO D2 guidance.

Like any other technology with a broad range of applications, differences apply to how the UV
light is generated. Most UV lamps contain inert gas and liquid mercury. When a voltage is
applied to the lamp, some of the mercury vaporizes and collides with the free electrons and ions

11
to raise the mercury atoms to an even higher energy state outputting the energy in the form of
UV light. The mercury atoms only discharge UV light in the UV–C range. The amount of UV
radiation produced is related to the concentration of vaporized mercury in the UV light. This is
directly related to the vapor pressure, hence low, medium and high pressure lamps. The low
pressure lamps produce monochromatic light - one frequency – 254 nm . This gives the most
efficient inactivation rate compared to the input voltage. Medium pressure lamps produce a
polychromatic light – many frequencies that cover the whole UV–C spectrum. However, only
approximately 7–15% of the light is in the 254 nm range, giving 50 times the UV–C output and
consuming 50 times the energy (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

The “intensity” is related to the inert gas and mercury alloy used, as some can remain stable at a
higher intensity, outputting more radiation resulting in a higher temperature, than others.

Medium pressure – high intensity lamps are most often used for ballast water treatment
applications. Space compatibility ,being a high priority, provides rationale which favors light
sources with the highest germicidal activation rate per size, which are the medium pressure
high intensity lamps. These lamps have a 10 times higher germicidal activation rate than a low
pressure - low intensity lamp with the same size, however they require 50 times higher energy
input (Clarke, 2011).

12
2.1.2 Byproducts
UV treatment produces no known byproducts in water treatment using, low intensity – low
pressure lamps. Some research has been done to find out if UV radiation of the water creates
any toxic byproducts. This research is done in relation to drinking water treatment that utilizes
low pressure – low intensity UV lamp operating in temperatures of 40 C. The research indicates
that no dangerous byproducts are produced with these lamps. However, medium pressure –
high intensity lamps operates in much higher temperature ranges as described above. Not
enough research has been done on this to draw any conclusions yet, however, studies indicate
that the production of dangerous byproducts can occur in some fresh water conditions. The
relevant byproducts are nitrite, AOC/BDOC (Eikebrokk, et. al, 2008) (Bolton et. al, 2008)

2.1.3 Limiting process factors


The limiting process factors are:

Color – reducing the UV radiations transmitting abilities in the water.

Suspended solids – microorganisms can hide inside or behind a solid particle that creates a
shadow effect from the radiation.

Turbidity: Turbidity in the water is result of several factors: The suspended solids, color, and
natural organic matter in the water. The turbidity reduces the transmission of the radiation
produced in the UV chamber. Table 2 illustrates how much the UV transmission – UVT
decreases with increased turbidity.

Table 2 Effect of Turbidity on UVT, UV Absorbance, UV Intensity, and Exposure Time (Clarke, 2011)

13
Fouling/ opaque film: Contamination of the quarts sleeves reduces the radiation intensity of
the lamp. The great differences in the water quality of the ballast water, combined with the
absent research on UV radiation in salt water, makes the forecast of growth of opaque film/
fouling difficult to predict. (Wait, 2005)

How fast the contamination on the sleeves happens, is related to the water’s hardness (amount
of CaCO3), the alkalinity, iron substances in the water, the ionic concentration, the oxidation
potential and the pH of the water (Schmelling, 2006).

Fouling can also occur when natural organic matter is burned on the quartz sleeves (radiation
source), due to the high temperatures (600 – 900 °C) (Lekang, 2012). It can also be related to
growth of natural organic matter on the quartz sleeves, during exposure to untreated sea water
without frequent usage of the treatment system (Delacroix, 2012).

Higher levels of calcium in seawater, compared to freshwater, indicates that fouling can be a
problem in seawater application as well (Lenntech, 2011). Figure 8 illustrates how much quicker
the medium pressure – high intensity lamp reduces the UV intensity due to fouling on the
quartz sleeves by calcium in fresh water.

Figure 8 Difference in reduction of UV intensity during a 7 day trial with LP and MP – lamp (Eikebrokk B. , 2008)

14
2.1.4 Pros/ cons for using UV radiation for treatment
The obvious advantage of using UV is its effectiveness against microorganisms. The treatment
produces no byproducts or residual toxicity and can handle freshwater conditions as well as
saline. The UV reactor is more compact than most other technology reactors. In addition HSE
requirements in relation to dealing with active substances do not have to be considered. UV
disinfection is also shown to not be sensitive to temperature changes. (Severin et al., 1983)

The negative aspects are the low energy efficiency of the radiation production – requiring a high
energy input for inactivating the organisms. Due to the lacking treatment quality measuring
methods in relation to the inactivation, empirical dose values are used as indicators for
sufficient treatment. The UV lights require regularly maintenance by cleaning the quartz sleeves
mechanically and chemically in relation to fouling. The technology is still expensive, but
reductions in the capital cost are to be expected in the future as the technology is becoming
more common (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

There are few hazards connected to the use of UV radiation. The only health threat could be a
broken UV light and potential exposure to of the mercury inside the lamps (Clarke, 2011).

2.1.5 Conclusion
UV treatment is an adequate treatment method for ballast water. However, the technology is
dependent on a pre-treatment of the water before entering the UV–reactor. This applies
especially to high turbidity conditions. If the pre-treatment does not work as predicted, meeting
the IMO requirements can be challenging. (Cangelosi et. al, 2011)

The low energy efficiency of the UV treatment will make the technology less competitive when
applied to higher flows. Routines for maintenance, in relation to the fouling, must be
implemented in order to keep the treatment efficiency high. In spite of this, UV radiation gives
good treatment results and is one of the safest treatment methods onboard a vessel today.

15
2.2 Deoxygenation of water with inert gas

2.2.1 Theory:
De-oxygenation of water is based on mixing inert gas containing nitrogen and small amounts of
CO2 with water, creating a hypoxic environment in the tank that will kill the aerobe
microorganisms that are dependent on dissolved oxygen in the water for their metabolism and
reproduction.

When the bubbles of gas, with 95% lower oxygen level then air, comes in contact with the water,
the oxygen diffuses from the water phase into the gas phase establishing a new equilibrium in
the water creating water with hypoxic conditions. At the same time, a small amount of nitrogen
and CO2 pass from the gas phase to the liquid phase.

There are several methods for mixing the gas with the water. A uniform distribution is essential
for a successful process.

Cavitation/turbulence mixing with a venturi in the main flowline during the intake should be the
most efficient way to achieve a “hypoxic” condition because of the uniform distribution of the
inert gas and the micro fine gas bubbles created by the venturi. (Tamburri et. al, 2003).

Methods based on vertical pipes in the ballast tanks, pumping the nitrogen directly into the
ballast water tanks have also been tested. Eventually producing hypoxic conditions, but use
more gas due to much of the diffusion happening through the surface of the water instead of
under (Tamburri et. al, 2003).More complex methods of deoxygenating are; glucose, carbon
monoxide, or bioreactors with oxygen removing bacteria (Tsolaki, Diamadopoulos, 2009)

After treatment, the pH is lowered from 8-8,5 in the seawater to 5 – 6. The pH is lowered
because of the addition of CO2 to the water from the gas mix (Huybregts, 2005). The low-oxygen
condition in the tank reduces the pH further, why this happens is unknown, but a qualified
conjecture would be because the byproducts form the dying aerobic organisms is CO2.

The microorganisms survive on the small amounts of dissolved oxygen in the atmosphere, which
is in equilibrium with oxygen in the air. When introduced to hypoxic conditions, the aerobic

16
microorganisms die. However, there is a small fraction of the microorganisms which are
facultative and do not use the oxygen for metabolism, but can still survive in aerobic conditions
(as opposed to the anaerobe microorganisms, which cannot survive in conditions where oxygen
is present) (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

2.2.2 Limiting Process factors


Neither, pH or temperature of the seawater affects the process. The only process limitation is time and
getting the conditions in the tank as anaerobe as possible.

2.2.3 Byproducts
A byproduct from the process is CO2, which must be ventilated out of the tanks. Another byproduct is
the lowered pH which increases the corrosion rate, this should be balanced out by the hypoxic
conditions.

If the treated ballast water is discharged without aerating the water, the low oxygen water can cause
eutrophication (Håkonsen, Biologisk Nitrogenfjerning - Lecture, 2011), killing local marine life and
causing harm to the environment.

2.2.4 Pros/ Cons for using deoxygenation


The hypoxic condition is a good corrosion inhibitor for ballast tanks that have not been coated (IMO,
Compatibility between ballast water management systems and ballast tank coatings, 2011). It is a rapid
treatment, using less than 10 seconds to reach the low oxygen equilibrium condition (Tamburri et. al,
2003).

The technology has few limiting process factors and is effective against zooplankton and aerobic
organisms. The energy required, for the generation of gas needed for treatment, is also low compared to
other treatment systems.

The negative aspect is that the technology needs a long holding time for the microorganisms to suffocate
from the low oxygen tank conditions. The treatment is not very effective against phytoplankton
(Tamburri et. al, 2003). The fact that the process does not reach a completely anaerobic condition,
makes the treatment less effective against facultative microorganisms (Sverdrup, 2012). The lowered pH

17
evens out the hypoxic corrosion inhibiting effect. The treatment also creates CO2 as a byproduct and
needs re-oxidation before leaving the tank.

2.2.5 Conclusion
Even though survival and reproduction conditions are very bad in a tank with hypoxic conditions, it has
been proven that some organisms are so adaptable to the new conditions that they still manage to
survive on the little oxygen still available in the water (ca. 1mg/l). This can be due to the process not
being able to mix the gas in the water uniformly. It can also be related to the type of microorganisms
present in the tank, (not always dependent on oxygen to survive). In spite of this the D2 treatment
results are met. However, the technology can have difficulties producing results for future stricter
requirements. Developers should research ways of achieving even lower oxygen conditions in the tanks
for better treatment results.

The treatment needs a 4 day holding time to reach IMO D2 standards and may not be an adequate
technology for use on vessels with shorter trading routes. The treatment also works as a corrosion
inhibitor of the ballast tanks.

The energy needed for producing the gas for the treatment is also low per m3 of treatment, compared to
other treatment methods.

18
2.3 Ozone

2.3.1 Theory
Ozone has been used for disinfection of drinking water the last 100 years. It is a common water
treatment method in Europe, but less common in the United States. Ozone is known for
producing excellent treatment results and working as a hygienic barrier if dosed high enough.

Ozone is an unstable gas produced when oxygen dissociates into atomic oxygen. It can be
produced by electrolysis, photochemical reactions or by electrical discharge of oxygen (figure 9).
Ozone is a blue colored gas in normal temperatures and has an odor that can be detected
before becoming hazardous (2ppm) at concentrations of 0.01 ppm. Gaseous ozone can be
explosive, when concentrated in greater amounts than 240 g/m3 (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

The production of ozone is an energy demanding process based on converting air to oxygen and
oxygen to ozone.

Figure 9 Generation process of ozone (NKCF, 2009)

Ozone generation is very unstable – converting quickly back to oxygen - it is therefore normal to
produce the ozone on site for immediate application. The ozone not used for the process gets
returned to a destruction device that converts it back to oxygen (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

19
Ozone is a powerful oxidant as shown in table 3. It kills most bacteria, virus, microorganisms and
some pathogens. However, the technology has problems targeting some parasites like
cryptosporidium, bacterial spores and larvae - requiring to compensate with much higher doses.

Table 3 Oxidation potential in v of different chemicals (Seoran, 2008)

The properties of ozone reactions in seawater differ from the ones in freshwater due to the
presence of the bromide ion and the following formation of bromine compounds (Wright, 2010).

In freshwater ozone treatment, the reactive oxidants are responsible for producing the
disinfectant used for treatment. In seawater ozone treatment, the reactions between ozone and
the bromide ion produces this disinfectant (Wright, 2010).

It was thought that the molecular ozone treats the water by oxidizing pollutants in vicinity of the
ozone molecule. However, research shows that it is the active substances that are produced by
the reaction between ozone and the bromide ions in the seawater that contributes the most to
the treatment. (Perrins et al., 2006)

20
The chemical reactions of ozone in sea water are very complicated due to the great variations of
quality and properties of the water. Five chemical reactions represent the ozone reaction in
seawater.

1) O3+Br-  OBr- + O2
2) O3 + OBr-  BrO2- + O2
3) O3 + OBr-  Br- + 2O2
4) O3 + BrO2-  BrO3- + O2
5) HOBr + H2O  OBr-+ H3O+

Two equations dominate the chemical reactions at low ozone dose properties, (1) and (5): OBr-
(Hypobromite ion) and HOBr - hypobromous acid are produced. (Wright, 2010)

When highly dosed, the disinfection byproduct BrO3-(bromate ion) is created.

The reactions are very rapid, making the average lifetime of ozone in seawater 6 seconds
(Hendricks, 2006). The ozone creates an active substance with the water, based on the reaction
with the bromide ion as mentioned.

2.3.2 Byproducts:
One of the problems associated with ozone as a disinfectant is the byproducts produced. OBr-
(Hypobromite ion), HOBr - hypobromous acid and BrO3-(bromate ion) are produced. These
byproducts do, however, degrade fairly rapidly (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

Oxygen, hydrogen and ozone that have not managed to mix into the water, are also byproducts
of the process. Hydrogen, accumulated in amounts over 4 ppm can be an explosive hazard.
Further, a mixed oxygen/hydrogen accumulation can carry the same properties. Free ozone in
areas with potential human contact can be lethal in amounts over 2 ppm.

21
2.3.3 Limiting process factors:
A limiting factor for ozone is the organic load and suspended solids – i.e. turbidity. A high
organic load or high amount of suspended solids will increase the needed dose of ozone for
oxidation. Nitrate, oil and grease is also known to reduce the effectiveness, but is not very
relevant in a ballast water treatment setting (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

It is mentioned in the review article by (Gregg et al., 2009) that by lowering the pH from 8, to 7
has reduced the TRO levels required to meet the D2 standard from 14 ppm – 9ppm. Indicating
that pH also can be a limiting factor for the process (Oemcke, 1999)

2.3.4 Pros/ cons of using ozone as a disinfectant.


Ozone is an effective disinfectant, more effective than chlorine in inactivating most
microorganisms. The biocidal properties of ozone are not influenced by temperature or salinity,
making the technology adequate to handle water with great variations of temperature and
salinity. It also has a shorter contact time than chlorine. (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004)

The negative aspects of ozone treatment are the large amount of byproducts produced under
treatment. The oxygen byproduct results in a highly corrosive environment in the ballast water
tanks. Converting oxygen into ozone is not an energy efficient process, only 15% efficiency.
Human contact with ozone can be lethal in amounts over 2 ppm (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004).

2.3.5 Conclusion
Ozone does provide good treatment results in most water qualities that are relevant for ballast
water treatment. The process limitations are few, and the degradation of ozone and its
byproducts is rapid.

However, the security measures and arrangements needed for safe ozone generation and
application can be too complicated for some vessels.

22
2.4 Advanced oxidation processes.

2.4.1 Theory
The advanced oxidation process – AOP is a rather new, yet well-researched water treatment
processes with over 1000 published papers on applications of AOP technology in the “Scopus
database” (Stasinakis, 2008). However, in comparison to Ozone, UV-radiation and chlorine
oxidation with over 100 years of operative study, the treatment method is still young.

The advantage of using AOP is its ability to degrade organic compositions that have difficulties
degrading with conventional treatment methods. The technology also shows good removal
abilities in relation to parasites and other microorganisms by destroying their cell membranes.

The most used radical for AOP is the Hydroxyl radical because of its high oxidation potential. A
high oxidation potential means that the ability to steal a hydrogen atom from organic matter is
very high. Higher than ozone, see table 3. It has one unpaired electron which is extremely
reactive, many times more than a normal oxidation-reduction reaction, meaning it will react
with almost anything (Chong et. al, 2010).

The radical reaction initiates a chain reaction that is very rapid in comparison to other oxidation
reactions. In table 4, we can see the OH radical’s superior reaction rate compared to Ozone. A
reaction rate quantifies the speed of a chemical reaction. This is relevant for ballast water
treatment because of the high flow rates and need for rapid reactions.
Table 4 Reaction rates for the oxidation through O3and OH• for different organic molecules (Andreozzi, 1999)

23
The oxidation-reduction reaction most often requires, one or more catalysts, such as
enzymes, metal surfaces, etc. to get started. The most common way to generate the free
hydroxyl radical is by photo catalysis of the semiconductor TiO2, generating the catalyst by
introducing energy with UV–radiation (figure 10). Other ways of producing the free hydroxyl
radicals are by: Ozone/UV, Ozone/hydrogen peroxide and UV/TiO2.

Alfa Laval use TiO2. The photocatalyst UV to generate OH radicals by radiating the metal surface
that absorbs a photon of the energy from the radiation – releasing an electron and an electron
vacancy hole. It is this electron and the hole that is the part of the oxidation reduction occurring
on and close to the surface. (Lekang, 2012)

TiO2 is a good catalyst because of its chemical and thermal stability and resistance to chemical
breakdown. The TiO2 is a relatively cheap catalyst which can work under ambient operation
temperatures and pressure. The wastewater can also be degraded completely to mineralization
without any secondary pollution.

Figure 10 UV light induced mechanism of electron-hole pair in a TiO2 particle with the presence of organic compound and H20

24
OH• cannot be introduced in the water-phase as a powder, liquid etc. It has to be generated,
for-example out of the H2O molecule. In contrast to novel treatment methods like
sedimentation, flotation etc. where pollutants are concentrated and treated after separation
from the water phase, OH•radicals eliminate the water pollutants directly out of the water-
phase, oxidizing the pollutants, producing H2O and CO2 as end products.

2.4.2 Byproducts

Most treatment methods that involve oxidation create byproducts by reacting with other
chemicals in the water, the AOP is a clean treatment process producing only CO2, H20 and
Inorganic salts as byproducts.

Figure 11 Photocatalytic reaction of TiO2 (Sheoran, 2008)

2.4.3 Process limitations

Photo catalysis reactions are surface orientated reactions. Therefore, the rate limitation step in
the TiO2 – photo catalysis is the adsorption of molecules on the surface or contact with the
catalyst during the reaction process. (Farhataziz, Ross A.B., 1977) Mass transfer or photo
catalysis reactions are inferior. This could cause some problems in photo catalytic reactor
configurations. (Herrmann, 1999)

The challenge with an AOP process in a reactor is that the free radicals have a short life and tend
to have difficulties oxidizing organisms that are not in immediate vicinity of the Ti02 source. It is
very challenging to design a reactor with Ti02 plates with the prerequisites that they will cover
the whole flow and at the same time get access to UV radiation.

25
pH: The pH affects the process by affecting the charge on the catalyst particles, size of catalyst
aggregates and valence bands. (Chong et. al, 2010)

Inorganic compounds in the water: The influence of inorganic compounds in the raw water is
an important factor for the process. There are several mechanisms and reactions that could
either be positive (for example: Cu2+,Al3+, etc.) or negative (for example: Ca2+, Mg2+, etc.) for
photo catalysis reactors. Positive effects are enhancing the mineralization reaction rate.
Negative effects are from ions which cause fouling on the surface of the Ti02 plates. As a result
more and more of active surface will be reduced, and result in the efficiency decreasing. A
solution to this could be a selective pre-treatment with ion-exchange. (Burns, 1999)

Fouling: The chemical reactions will inhibit fouling on the metal surface (Lekang, 2012). Fouling
of the UV – quartz glasses in relation to combining Ozone and UV for generating OH free radicals
can be a problem that needs further investigation (Eikebrokk B. , 2008). Fouling of UV – quartz
sleeves in relation to contact with NOM is described more detailed in the UV – section of this
thesis, but is highly relevant as a process limitation in a photo-catalytic AOP process (Cangelosi
et. al, 2011). This is because the chain reaction will not start if the radiation intensity is low.

Temperature: Showing poor results in temperatures under 6°C, AOP technology would not be a
good solution for cold water conditions (Malato et. al, 2009).

UV – intensity: Low UV intensity caused by properties mentioned in the UV section can reduce
the catalyst generating abilities in the process (Cangelosi et. al, 2011).

2.4.4 Pros/ cons for using AOP

The positive sides of using AOP’s as a treatment method for ballast water is the non-hazardous
byproducts from the oxidation by free radicals –H20, CO2 and inorganic salts. The treatment is as

26
quick as a UV – treatment requiring no holding time because the treatment is not based on
generating TRO disinfectant. The treatment is considered more efficient than UV – radiation
alone.

However, the process has many limiting process factors and there is little operational data to
back up how much the process is influenced by fouling and how fast this decreases the
efficiency of the process. The TiO2 surfaces also need access to radiation to work as a catalyst
for the process, being limitation for the design of the reactor.

How much of the treatment is dedicated to the AOP and how much to the UV radiation in the
photo catalytic generation of free radicals is unknown. Practical assumptions indicate that very
little of the treatment is done by the free radicals. Comparing the energy consumption between
stand-alone UV systems and a UV – AOP system does not indicate lower energy consumption
for the UV – AOP.

27
2.4.5 Conclusion

Practical experience indicates that most of the treatment is dedicated to the UV–radiation,
when used for generating the catalyst for the free radicals. Oxidation by free radicals should
until proven more efficient, be considered a single UV–radiation treatment step.

The energy consumption used for generating the UV–radiation needed for the treatment in Alfa
laval’s “Pure ballast 2.0” system is approximately the same as for a UV–system without the AOP
indicating that the AOP does not contribute to much of the treatment load (results).

However, being able to treat non-degradable substances, which are not targeted by IMO’s
ballast water treatment standards, is a very positive quality.

The technology has the limiting factors of UV-radiation. On the other hand, it has the ability to
combine the strengths of UV–radiation and AOP processes for better removal in optimal water
conditions.

28
2.5 Filters

2.5.1 Theory
Physical separation in municipal water/ wastewater treatment targets to remove 50% of the
suspended solids and 30% of the organic matter. This is done by having a sedimentation basin
giving the process enough time for the smaller particles to settle or by removal through a screen
filter or a granular 2 or 3 media filter. In water/ wastewater treatment, time and space is not an
issue, making it possible to have sedimentation basins or large filters. (Håkonsen, PHD, VA -
Support, 2011)

In ballast water treatment space and time is essential. Large flows ( up to 8000 m3/h) need to
be handled in small facilities ( a room in the vessel). A limiting factor is the pressure drop over
the filter. A high pressure drop will increase the energy consumption required to pump the
water in the ballast tanks or result in a longer ballasting time if not able to provide the extra
pressure. The pressure drop is increased linearly with mesh size. A filter with a small mesh will
increase the chances of clogging. After using a cost- benefit analysis, most suppliers have chosen
a 40 – 55um mesh. Figure 12 shows a typical filter used in BWT.

Figure 12 Illustration of a Boll & Kitch candle-filter (Bollfilter, 2006)

29
Clogging tends to happen when sediments and organisms larger than the mesh size accumulate
in the wired mesh and don’t get removed by a back-flush. The water follows the path of “lowest
resistance” and if possible, passes through the mesh-wire where accumulated organic matter
has already been removed. (Mouawad, 2012)

Single cells of algae are microscopic and do not pose any threat against clogging. However,
algae tends to move in colonies of millions, giving some filters major problems during algae
blooms. The main functions that tend to fail are the back-flushing sequence that does not
remove enough organic matter, and algae. (Cangelosi et. al, 2011)

Mesh size: As mentioned, most filters used for ballast water treatment have mesh sizes of 40 –
55 um. They are meant to target the suspended solids, natural organic matter, and
microorganisms over 50um that pass through the sea-chest mesh (intake point D=ca. 10 mm ).
However practical tests show that only 70% of the targeted microorganisms get removed in the
candle sticks of a Boll & Kitch filter (Andersen A. , 2007). The sediments that cause “mud” in the
bottom of the ballast tanks have a diameter of under 1um, passing easily through the filter
(Bærheim, 2012). Due to the time available on long haul transports, these particles accumulate
in the bottom of the tanks.

Back-flushing is an automated process with a set-point triggered by the pressure differential


over the filter. The water needed for the operation is generated by a small pump which is
included in the treatment system that is not in use. If the back-flushing sequence requires a
higher pressure than the ballast pump can provide, a booster pump will need to be installed.
Treated water is always used for the operation, making the time and flow needed to complete
the operation essential. How much water a back-flush requires is unknown. Boll & Kirch claims
their candle filter uses 10% of the flow for the sequence – practical experience shows that the
reality is closer to 30% of the flow going to back-flushing (Mouawad, 2012). Hyde Marine claims
that their filter uses 1% of the total treated water for back-flushing. Until there has been a third
party verification of the volumes, this information should only be used as an indication. The
total volume used for a back-flush sequence is directly related to the quality of the water.

30
Some filters assist the removal of accumulated filtrated mass in the filter screens with another
physical removal method such as vacuuming. In such systems, the back-flushed water will only
work as a transport medium of the filtrated mass, obviously requiring less water than if the
water was the only removal medium(figure 13) (Filtersafe, 2012).

Figure 13 vacuum back-flush filter from "Filtersafe" (Filtersafe, 2012)

2.5.2 Byproducts
The treatment produces no byproducts, except accumulated sludge. This is discharged
overboard. In other similar treatment processes – aquaculture, the sludge needs to be
deposited and handled, a discharge is not accepted (Lekang, 2012). This might be taken into
consideration in the future.

2.5.3 Limiting process factors


An algae bloom or a bloom of filamentous diatom-Aulacoseira has shown to be a limiting factor
for the separation process, leading to frequent back-flushing or clogging of the filter. (Cangelosi
et. al, 2011)

Obviously water with a high organic load or with large amounts of suspended solids would lead
to more frequent back-flushing and possible clogging of the filter.

31
A limiting process factor would be algae blooms, water with a high organic load and water with
a large amount of suspended solids.

2.5.4 Pros/ cons for using filters:


A positive outcome of using a filter is that the organic load introduced to the succeeding
treatment step is lower and has less variation in the organic load, making the need for over-
dimensioning the succeeding treatment step for possible peaks in the organic load and saving
energy by treating less organic matter.

The negative aspects would be when the back-flushing sequence fails to clean the filter mesh,
removal and replacement of the filter must be done. This requires manpower and is likely to
happen when the crew is occupied with the unloading process.

Another negative aspect would be the technologies large footprint. A filter rack contains twice
the UV-reactor volume space for a 150 m3/h treatment system and 20 times the volume space
of the 1500 m3/h UV- reactor volume(6,5x2,1x2,1 m - filter) (Hyde-Marine, 2010). This should
be taken into consideration when dealing with larger flow systems.

2.5.5 Conclusion
A filter is an excellent treatment method in average water quality conditions – removing great
amounts of the larger sized organic matter and large sediments before in-taking the water. In
addition, it lowers the variations in organic load for the succeeding treatment step and will
require a lower biocide or UV–radiation dose than without the presence of the filter.

However, in low quality water, the filter will decrease the flow due to frequent back-flushing,
resulting in a longer ballasting sequence and keeping the vessel at port. It will struggle to
provide the treatment expected and can, if clogged, as a worst case scenario, result in a
shutdown of the whole treatment system (severe consequences for the ship-owner).

32
It must be emphasized that a filter can handle any water quality, given that area of clean mesh
provided is large enough, and that filters from different suppliers come in a variation of designs.
Hence filters can handle poor water qualities in different ways.

33
2.6 Electro-chlorination

2.6.1 Theory
Electrolysis is a method for separating bounded elements and compounds by passing an electric
current through them. The current is applied between a pair of electrodes creating a negative
charged electrode called cathode and positive acting as a sink of electrons is called anode. The
charged ions (more in saline water – less in fresh water) move to the opposite charged
electrodes and the force needed to separate them is provided by the power supply. At the
probes, electrons are absorbed or released by the ions. If the water has no salt it, the following
equation represents the process.

1) 2H2O (aq) => 2H2(g) + O2(g) (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004)

Electrolytic disinfection of water is based on the production of sodium hypochlorite and/or


hypochlorous acid from the application of electrolysis in the water. The natural chloride content
in saline water (NaCl-) is transformed to hypochlorite by the applied current producing the
following equation (Tsolaki et. al, 2009).

2) 2Cl- +2H2O => Cl2 + H2+ 2OH-

From the equation, free oxygen and hydrogen are a byproduct in freshwater, while hydrogen
and chlorine are byproducts when the process is applied to a saltwater solution. If the electrode
is coated with metal (TiO2) the applied energy can generate hydroxyl radicals. The free radicals
oxidize their part of the pollutants, reducing the amounts of chlorine needed for the process.

There are two operational methods of electrochemical disinfection.

1) Direct flow-through method – contact between main flow and process.


2) Indirect method – disinfectant generated in an electrochemical device then injected to a
disinfector

The direct method is more effective then indirect because of the generation of free radicals at
the electrodes with metal coating (Vijayaraghavan et. al, 2008).

34
Disinfection with chlorine is a widely used method for oxidizing microorganisms in drinking
water treatment. It has proved its effectiveness on oxidizing pathogens with an exception of
cryptosporidium and bacterial spores (Lechevallier, Kwok-Keung, 2004).

2.6.2 Byproducts
Reactions between the organic matter in the water and the hypochlorite, creates byproducts
that are dangerous for the environment. Trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids are the most
dominant species of byproducts produced by electrolysis (Tsolaki, Diamadopoulos, 2009). Since
seawater composition is unique for every site, generalizing the relationship between output
byproducts and added disinfectant is not feasible.

Approaching the parameters that influence the production of byproducts, it can be noted that
the amounts of free chlorine and bromine, pH, temperature, and the level of organic matter in
the water, has great relevance to the amounts of byproducts produced from the disinfection
process (Tsolaki et. al, 2009). The byproducts are increased with increased organic load (Gregg
et al., 2009). Residual chlorine is also a threat against the environment. In ballast water
treatment, if there are still high amounts of oxidants in the water, the degradation process is
accelerated by adding a reduction agent before discharge. The reduction agent is most often
sodium thiosulfate. (Tsolaki et. al, 2009)

The electrolysis process also produces the gasses hydrogen, oxygen and Cl2. The amount of
hydrogen produced is twice the amount of oxygen and proportional to the electrical input
(Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004). Accumulated hydrogen can be dangerous in amounts over 4 ppm.
Production of free oxygen is due to low saline conditions, this can be very hazardous if mixed
with hydrogen and accumulated. In saline conditions, the oxygen from hydroxyl radicals stays in
the solution and oxidizes microorganisms. In low saline conditions, (eq.1) the byproducts are
hydrogen and oxygen.

35
2.6.3 Limiting process factors
Temperature: The reaction rate and kinetics of the chemical reactions that occur when using
hypochlorite as a biocide are concentration and temperature dependent. In 1999 White
indicated that chlorine needs an 50% increased contact time (20 – 30 min) in water with pH 8,0
– 8.5 when exposed to 0 – 5 °C and 10°C temperature water respectively, to achieve the same
treatment results. This is due to “the temperature influence on the electrochemical kinetic of
chlorine production is rather difficult to predict, as the activation energy is based on a
combination of thermal activation and the electrical activation. The over-potential necessary to
activate an electrochemical reaction is dependent on material properties of electrodes, the ion
species and the diffusion of reactants to electrodes. Due to different temperature dependencies,
the reaction rate of one ionic reactant may decrease faster than the other species, and the
reaction products may change accordingly” (Wu, 2012). Testing indicates that the total
produced chlorine decreases when the temperature drops below 15°C (Severntrent, 2012). At a
certain temperature the reaction will stop producing chlorine and start producing oxygen.
“Temperature also has influences on the decomposition rate of TRO. With decreasing
temperature, the life time of TRO increases. In addition to reaction kinetic, temperature also
influences the equilibrium between hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite. As showing in Fig. 14,
the percentage of hypochlorous acid is higher at lower temperature, resulting in a higher
disinfection efficiency.” (Wu, 2012) The complexity of the variable water and system properties
makes it complicated to approach this parameter theoretically. The ideal way to find out how
the different electrolysis-based treatment systems handle cold water would be by cold water
testing the BWMS.

36
pH: when introducing chlorine to water the chlorine
will form either hypochlorous-acid or hypochlorite
(figure 14). Hypochlorous-acid is many times more
efficient than hypochlorite, but requires acidic
properties for complete formation. Saltwater
normally has a pH over 8; hence most of the
chlorite produced is in the less efficient
hypochlorite form. The composition of chlorite in
relation to pH is illustrated on the figure 14. The
graph illustrates that the temperature has some
effect on the composition of properties of

hypochlorous-acid and hypochlorite and the


Figure 14 Distribution of HOCL and OCL- in
solutions with different pH (Morris, 1951) efficiency of the chloride. Armstrong also confirms
that the effectiveness of chlorine is pH dependent
(Armstrong, 1997).

Bacteria types: Studies have indicated that nearly all of the bacteria surviving chlorine
disinfection were gram positive or acid fast (Northon & LeChevallier, 2000). Probably because
gram–positive bacteria have thicker walls than gram–negative. (Northon et. al, 2000)

Conductivity: Another limiting factor of the process is the conductivity. Water with salt,
because it is full of charged particles, will conduct electricity. Conductivity measures the ability
of a solution to conduct an electric current. This is needed to lead the electricity through the
water. The conductivity of a solution is proportional to the concentration of ions in the solution.
A lower conductive solution will require higher voltages to generate the same amounts of
disinfectant. (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004)

Most freshwater has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm. Brackish water has 27000 µS/cm and
seawater is 54000 µS/cm (Apps-Laboratories).

37
Salt: Salt in the water is a limiting factor for production of sodium chloride disinfectant. The
chlorine gas is from the chlorine in the salt. There is a direct relation between amount of salt
and the conductivity in the water. (Sydberger, 2012)

2.6.4 Pros/ cons for using electro- chlorination

Byproducts are produced when oxidizing the organic matter and substances in sea water. These
are poisonous to the environment, but degrade rapidly.

Residual chlorine can be an environmental hazard, if not degraded or removed before


discharging. The complete degradation of chlorine in seawater takes three days. However,
applying a decomposition agent to the water works as a degradation catalyst. (Nanayakkara et.
al, 2011)

Chlorine treatment has been claimed to be a corrosion catalyst in the ballast tanks, due to the
oxidizing effect of chlorine and free oxygen produced by the electrolysis process in brackish and
fresh water (Stocks et. al, 2004).

Generation of chlorine with electrolysis is a very economical way to generate a disinfectant


opposed to purchasing it in liquid or gas form and providing storage for it. When the process
conditions are optimized the generation of oxidants is not more energy consuming than other
ballast water treatment methods.

2.6.5 Conclusion
The section describing process “limitations” indicate that the process conditions needed for the
generation of chlorine by electrolysis is dependent on conditions that are not always present at
ports where a vessel needs to intake ballast water e.g. in fresh, brackish or cold water
conditions.

Tsolaki et. al has investigated the treatment abilities of sodium hypochlorite on the indicator
bacteria ”artemia salina” in seawater. Mortality rates over 75% were achieved at a chlorine

38
concentration 200 mg/L with 1,5 min contact time. The treatment abilities of electrolysis of
seawater were also investigated. Applying a density of 135 mA/cm2 to the salt water, with a
residence time of around 1 min, 100% mortality was achieved. This gave a concentration of
residual chlorine of400 mg/L and required an energy input of 3,5 kWh/m3. (Tsolaki et. al, 2009)

This indicates that electro-chlorination can be a good alternative for ballast water treatment if
the right process conditions are present. Some suppliers have taken this into account by
introducing the possibility to use water from a spare salt water tank or adding NaCl to the
influent if the process conditions are not good enough. Suppliers that cannot provide this
possibility, will have systems that will only be able to be used in limited conditions. Good
process conditions include water with high salinity levels, high conductivity, low pH, low
temperature and low organic load.

39
2.7 Manufactured systems used for ballast water treatment

This section is meant to inform the reader on the treatment systems of some of the central
manufactures in today’s marked. The rationale behind including these systems in the feasibility
study is:

 They cover a wide range of technologies used for treating ballast water today,
 They represent the manufactures with the highest number of sold systems in the
marked.
 They all have systems in operation,
 They are all type approved by IMO.

The study of each system will introduce the reader to the core components that make up the
treatment system; how they work; and point out some weaknesses and strengths; concluding
with a recommendation regarding what parts of the marked the system would be suitable/ non
suitable for. There has been a deliberate focus on pointing out the differences between the
systems.

40
2.7.1 Alfa Laval – Pure Ballast 2.0
System description:

The Pure Ballast 2.0 system is


based on a two stage treatment
process (figure 15); filtration and
an advanced oxidation processes
– AOP - generated by a photo-
catalyst – UV, on a TiO2 surface.
The spread of radicals is not
affected by the presence of

particles, making the system Figure 15 Flow diagram of Pure ballast 2.0

theoretically efficient when


exposed to water with high turbidity. How much of the treatment is done by the oxidation that
takes place when generating free radicals is unknown. The challenge with an AOP process in a
reactor is that the free radicals have a short life and tend to have difficulties oxidizing organisms
that are not in immediate vicinity of the Ti02 source. It is very challenging to design a reactor
with Ti02 plates with the prerequisites that they will cover the whole flow and at the same time
get access to UV radiation. This assumes that UV radiation is the primary treatment supplier
with some assistance from the free radicals, making “Pure Ballast 2.0” in practice a filter/ UV
treatment system.

The water passes through the filter and AOP Unit on intake. When discharged the ballast water
passes through the AOP unit only.

As described in the AOP technology description, an AOP process, based on photo catalysis of
TiO2, only produces H20 and CO2 as byproducts, in spite of this it is still considered an active
substance by IMO.

41
Filtration: The filtration, as a pre-treatment step, targets the microorganisms over 40 um,
separating them from the flow and returning them to the environment they came from. The
filter used for Pure-ballast 2.0 is a “Boll & Kirch” filter based on wire mesh candles. The filter
should decrease the variations and average concentration of microorganisms in the influent,
specifically of the larger organisms over 50 um. By giving the treatment process fewer
organisms to target, the UV lamps will need a lower dose resulting in lower power consumption.
The candle filters have had some problems with handling algae blooms and back-flushing in
general. (Cangelosi et. al, 2011) Under the flushing sequence, the organic matter and suspended
solids in the wire mesh, on the center of the candle, suffer from the “path of lowest resistance”
property of fluid dynamics, leaving organic matter in the areas furthest away from the back-
flush inlet un-removed. The filters have also had a tendency to allow particles over 40um
through the mesh. The filter is automatically back-flushed when a 0,7 bar pressure differential is
registered. The pressure needed for the back-flushing is provided by a local pump within the
system. The flow out of the filter is variable and related to how often a candle needs to be back-
flushed. (Bollfilter, 2006)

AOT unit The AOT unit is a reactor box that can treat water flows up to 250 m3/h. For systems
with larger capacities, the AOT units are placed in parallel. The unit contains titanium surface
plates and a radiation source of medium pressure – high intensity UV lamps. Due to the extreme
heat ( >600°C) the UV lamps can produce a hazardous condition. Risk preventive action is taken
by ventilating with “oil free” instrument air and a slight overpressure; in this way, preventing
gas from entering the unit. The unit is also reinforced to handle an explosion. Furthermore the
unit is also at all times filled with liquid, either a diluted acid from the CIP unit, or treated fresh-
water. This is an explosion safety measure. (Alfalaval, 2010)

Process control: There are temperature, lamp failure and flow sensors, in the unit that will stop
the process if exposed to limit values. This results in a double back-up against hazardous
temperatures. There are no intensity sensors in the unit, giving little process control on the
water treatment.

42
Cleaning of equipment/ maintenance: Before and after the treatment is finished, or every 30
hours, the “clean in place” (CIP) - unit is activated and gives a chemical cleaning of the AOT unit.
This removes sediments in the AOT unit and should clean the UV – quarts sleeves for
contaminants that can reduce the UV intensity. However, research indicates that the UV quarts
sleeves also need mechanical cleaning. (Eikebrokk B. , 2008) The CIP chemicals need to be
changed every year of operation or if pH is under 3. The UV lamps need to be replaced every
1500 hours. In practice this can vary depending on how much and what type of contamination
there is in the influent water. The flow meters should be cleaned annually and the filter should
be inspected every year. (Alfalaval, 2010)

Predicted marked targets: Alfa Laval can provide “Pure Ballast 2.0” systems in capacity ranges
of 250 – 3000 m3/h. The technology, being one of the more energy consuming in the market,
excludes the high ballast dependent vessels.

The treatment system is based on a two way treatment. The filter is only “active” at intake. The
AOP unit, however, needs to treat the water both at intake and discharge to meet the required
IMO treatment standards. This makes the treatment system not applicable to gravity-based
intake or discharge of ballast water. This excludes installation in gravity-based discharge
dependent vessels.

The system can be retrofitted and is modular. It can, in theory, be installed in a ship without dry-
docking the vessel. However, at the present time, this has not yet been done. (Alvan, 2012)

Alfa Laval has sold 200 Pure Ballast units, where 60 of these are in operation, 100 in the
installation process and 40 in the initial planning phase.

System process weaknesses:

The system has no water treatment quality monitoring - making the result and efficiency of the
treatment unknown to the operator. There are no intensity sensors, resulting in no indication to
the operator if the quartz sleeves are contaminated and cannot produce sufficient intensity.
Further, there is no mechanical cleaning of the UV – quartz sleeves. This need is to some extent

43
compensated by the chemical cleaning of the unit every 30 hours of operation and in between
long downtime periods. Turbidity, leads to lower transmission of UV light which can result in
non-sufficient treatment. The filter fails in water with high turbidity and organic load. If the
transmission in the water is low, the free radicals are not produced due to the UV-radiation not
reaching the titanium source in water (Cangelosi et. al, 2011).

Treatment failure scenarios.

Scenario 1: Contamination on UV sleeves  Lower UV intensity Less free radicals produces,


and less inactivation of micro organisms  Treatment requirement not met.

Scenario 2: Filter unit clogged  Need to bypass filter  High turbidity water and higher NOM
in water Lower UV intensity  More contamination on Quarts sleeves and lower treatment
ability..

Scenario 3: Sensors do not work  Information of process failure does not get communicated
to the process  Flow can decrease Can result in high temperatures Potential hazardous
situation.

Scenario 4: Titanium source can get contaminated  Generation of free radicals is reduced
Treatment efficiency is reduced.

44
2.7.2 Hyde Marine – Hyde Guardian

System description:

The Hyde Marine BWMS is based on a


two stage treatment process, with
filtration as pre-treatment and UV
radiation as a deactivation step (figure
16). Filtration is only conducted at intake,
but to meet the IMO requirements the
system needs to deactivate both at
intake and discharge of ballast water.

Figure 16 Flow diagram of the Hyde Guardian BWTS

Disk filter: The disk filter is made up of 4-20 small filter units, (for standard size systems),
combined to form a filter module. The technology is based on nylon disks diagonally grooved on
both sides to form the 55 micron mesh and stacked and compressed on special spines to create
filter elements. Water flows from the outside of each element to the core and out. The filter

material is made with non-corrosive material, being a normal 316L steel with a coating. During
filtration, the disks are compressed together by springs, creating a differential pressure (0,3 bar).
When the disk mesh is saturated with organic matter and organisms, to the point that the
differential pressure has reached over 0,7 bar, the specific filter is bypassed . Then the filter
disks are separated, by releasing the compression on the disks, and clean water is back-flushed
with treated water with 6 bar pressure. In comparison with other filters, a 6 bar back-flushing
sequence is very high. The Boll filter, for instance, needs only 1-2 bars pressure for back-
flushing. Membrane filters with pores small enough to separate virus under 10 nm and organic
matter with size down to 2nm have an operating pressure of 3 – 6 bar (Hem, 2011). Generating

45
this pressure can introduce the need for a booster pump. The back flushing sequence, that only
takes 10 seconds, should release the organic matter and organisms trapped in the filter mesh.
The relative rapid back-flushing sequence might be the key factor to the given water
consumption of 1% of the total treated water during an operation. It must be stressed that this
volume is only an indicator, and that this is dependent on the water quality of the filtered water.
The filter module is dimensioned so that one unit can be standby and still deliver the optimal
flow rate. The flow out of the filter is variable and related to how often a candle needs to be
back-flushed (Hydemarine, 2010) (Riggio, 2012). Figure 17 shows the system on a skid.

Filter rack

UV reactor

Figure 17 Hyde Guardian BWMS (Hydemarine, 2010)

UV –Radiation Unit: After pre-treatment the water passes through radiation chambers of 250
m3/h capacity where the water is radiated with medium pressure – high intensity lamps. The
relative intensity, of the radiation through the water, is measured with an intensity sensor,
placed 10 mm from the light source, giving a signal for a mechanical cleaning sequence if the
intensity is too low. An alarm will notify the operator, if the intensity is not improved after the
mechanical cleaning sequence. The intensity value limit is based on an empirical approach on
how high radiation intensity is needed to inactivate enough microorganisms to comply with the

46
IMO standard. The maximum power level is only drawn in water with very high turbidity or
when the quarts sleeves have accumulated enough contamination to achieve a 25% decrease of
potential irradiation. The UV- unit has an energy regulator that gives the user a possibility to
reduce the energy consumption during good water conditions. (Riggio, 2012)

Process control: As described the system has intensity sensors, which are mechanically cleaned.
The system also has a double temperature process control, in a flow meter and temperature
transmitter, preventing high temperatures in the radiator. Lamp fail alarms are also provided.

Cleaning of equipment/ maintenance: Officially Hyde Marine claims that there is little
maintenance related to the treatment system. The lamps should have an 8000 hour lifetime if
maintained properly. However, this is only a theoretical number. In practice the life expectancy
is most likely to be much lower. Turning the lamps off reduces life expectancy. Opaque film and
fouling on the sleeves, can also shorten the life time of a lamp. Lamps will also need regular
chemical cleaning as a part of maintenance. (Eikebrokk B. , 2008)

Hyde Marine also claims that the filter does not need any maintenance. However, there is
reason to believe that the disk filters also have problems with clogging and need replacement or
maintenance regularly when exposed to challenging conditions with high turbid water.
(Cangelosi et. al, 2011) However it would be expected that the high pressure of the back-flushed
water should be able to prevent clogging.

Predicted market targets: As described, the Hyde Guardian BWMS is a two way treatment unit
and cannot discharge based on gravity. Due to the relative high energy consumption of the UV-
radiation process the system will have difficulties providing a competitive OPEX against other
technologies when operating with capacities over 1000m3/h. Providing enough space for
filtering units that are able to handle over 1000m3/h is also a challenge. Hence the treatment
system is not very relevant for large, high ballast-dependent vessels.

For smaller vessels the system is highly competitive. The modularity of the system is quite good,
being a crucial factor for the predicted boom in the retrofit market. Smaller systems can be
installed without dry-docking the vessel. This can be a great advantage due to a sudden rush to

47
the dry-docks in relation to a ratification of the IMO ballast water convention. The Hyde
Guardian treatment system is especially competitive for smaller vessels with booster pumps
already installed, such as offshore supply vessels.

Approximately 200 Hyde Guardian systems have been sold, 50 of which are in operation, and 60
are on the assembly line. The largest system sold is a 5000 m3/h system. (Riggio, 2012)

System process weaknesses:

A system process weakness could be the handling of water with high turbidity, algae blooms or
high organic load. This could clog the filters or create low transmission for the UV – radiation.
Colored water can also decrease the UV transmission and reduce the treatment efficiency of the
process.

Some parasites and bacterial spores need much higher radiation doses than reference bacteria
used on the land-based and shipboard testing for complying with the IMO guidelines. The
chances of bacterial spores, certain types of larva and some parasites surviving the treatment is
low, research is needed to find out if bacterial spores are a problem in relation to bio-invasion .

Treatment failure scenarios:

Scenario 1: Filter unit clogged Need to bypass filter  High turbidity water and higher NOM
in water  Lower UV intensity More contamination on quarts sleeves and lower treatment
ability

Scenario 2: Sensors do not work  Information of process failure does not get communicated
to the process  Flow can vary Can result in high temperatures Potential hazardous
situation

Scenario 3: Mechanical wiping does not clean sufficiently  Lower UV intensity Treatment
requirement not met

Scenario 4: Operation in water with high turbidity or NOM values  Filter gets clogged, UV unit
cannot reach needed intensity Treatment requirement not met

48
2.7.3 NKCF – NK03
System description:

The NKO3 treatment system is a single treatment step system, based on treating the water by
oxidation with ozone generated on site with an ozone generator (figure 18). NKCF dedicates
most of the treatment to the oxidation from the direct contact with the ozone molecules, while
the active substances produced by the reaction with bromine ions in the sea water, should only
contribute to prevent re growth. However, the opposite was proved in ship board testing’s of
ozone for treatment of ballast water. (Herwig et. al, 2006). The byproducts of the process are
hypobromous acid and hypobromide ions (Wright, 2010). However these should degrade
rapidly, making the effluent released to the water nontoxic to the environment. Should the TRO
levels be higher than required, a neutralization unit adds a degradation catalyst - thio sulfate.
(NKCF, 2009)

Figure 18 Flow diagram NKO3

The treatment system consists of an oxygen generator that separates the oxygen from nitrogen
and concentrates the oxygen to a 93% purity before leading it through a high frequency
electrical field to produce ozone – O3 (with 10% purity) (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004). Intake

49
water is side streamed and the ozone is injected into the ballast water stream by a re-circulation
pump.

To reduce risk of leakage of ozone gas, the system carries out a pressure initialization sequence
before startup, that checks if the pressure from air compressor to ejector is constant in 3
minutes. This sequence is automatically carried out before the system is operated. (NKCF, 2009)

The process produces some free oxygen because of the high amount injected oxygen in the
water. This is ventilated out. Ozone is added in amounts of approximately 2.5 g/m3. This is the
same dosage used in conventional water treatment, working as a hygienic barrier against
bacteria (Liane, 2005). The above is in relation to drinking water treatment with less active
substances produced during the reaction and much higher target requirements then ballast
water treatment, therefore making a direct comparison difficult.

Generating ozone is very energy demanding process because most of the energy used in the
conversion from oxygen to ozone is lost as heat.

When finished with de ballasting – the spare ozone gas in the ozone generator is discharged
automatically to the ozone destructor and vented out. (NKCF, 2009)

Process control

The ozone dosing is a backward process, dosed after an optimal detected TRO value of 7.5, up
to a maximum value of 5g/m3 ( 5ppm), this makes the process semi adjustable, allowing the
possibility to adjust the ozone dosage to the water quality of the influent. If maximum added
dose of ozone is generated and the TRO produced is still not sufficient, an alarm goes off and
the incident is logged. (Mouawad, 2012)

There are two pairs of TRO sensors, before and after the addition of ozone, this controls the
dosage of neutralization and the dosing of ozone.

Ozone gas can be very hazardous in concentrations above 0.1ppm. Due to this DNV requires a
regularly ventilated room with, gas sensors placed strategically places and shutdown procedures

50
if detection of gas. Oxygen and ozone gas is only generated during operation which makes this
the only time this could be a hazard. The weak points are the flanges.

The system will shut down if:

 Leakage is detected before operation – not constant pressure


 Leakage is detected under operation – leakage detected by oxygen/ ozone sensor

(NKCF, 2009)

Maintenance: Due to limited operational data, it is difficult to reliably comment on system


maintenance. However, one can assume that maintenance in relation to the oxygen generator
and ozone generator should cover most of the maintenance of the system.

Predicted market targets: Due to the fact that generating ozone is a fairly energy consuming
process, this technology might not suit the high ballast dependent vessels with large ballast
pumps.

The complicated installation makes the retrofit installations challenging. The potential danger of
having a deadly gas on a vessel can also be a “turn off” for some ship-owners.

However, the simplicity of the system (only including one treatment step and one way
treatment), makes it a potential match for vessels dependent on gravity-based discharge. The
system is very flexible regarding meeting new and tougher treatment standards, the system
change to meet stricter requirements would be increasing the amounts of ozone. The system
also has a low pressure drop due to there not being a filter in the system.

51
System process weaknesses:

An obvious system weakness is that the system has little control of how high the organic load is
due to no pre-treatment (filter). However, not having a filter eliminates the clogging issue when
operating in water with high NOM levels. The empirical maximum value of 5 g/m3 added ozone
will most probably produce a TRO level in the ballast tank of 7,5ppm. If the water has a high
sediment load, or a very high organic load, the amounts of ozone added might not be sufficient.
Freshwater is not a limitary factor when using ozone as an oxidant. Ozone has been used
commercially for water treatment purposes for over 100 years. Cold water will slow down the
reaction rate and the decomposition rate of TRO. Resulting in different scenarios based on the
individual properties of the chemicals in the seawater. Sometimes cold water can reduce the
amount of disinfectant produced. The slower decomposition rate results in more neutralizers
added (higher TRO at discharge). (Wu, 2012)

Treatment failure scenarios.

Scenario 1: Leakage of ozone Shutdown of system Treatment not accomplished

Scenario 2: Neutralizer not working  Ballast water with high TRO levels get discharged
 Environmental damage

Scenario 3: Organic load higher than expected  Not enough ozone is generated  Treatment
requirements not met

Scenario 4: Less than 12 hours between ballasting and de ballasting Not adequate holding
time Treatment requirements not met

Scenario 5: Ventilation fans not working  Not possible to ventilate leakage  Hazardous
situation due to a shutdown

52
2.7.4 Oceansaver – Mark 2
System description

Oceansaver was one of the first suppliers of BWTS, starting their development of the Mark 1
system in 2003. The first system was based on a 4 component treatment system: Filtration/
cavitation/ Nitrogen supersaturation/ electrodialytic hypobromide generation.

The many treatment stages worked as good security against a possible treatment failure,
targeting different sized microorganisms and being a corrosion inhibitor. In spite of Mark 1’s
excellent treatment result, the system was very expensive, had a high pressure loss, and was
very space consuming due to the many technology combinations.

This resulted in the development of a new system – Mark 2, type approved by DNV in the end of
2011. The developed system has replaced the candle based “Boll & Kirch” filter for a filter with
vacuum back-flushing. Oceansaver claims that they now can prevent 99% of the microorganisms
over 50um to enter the electodialytic reactor, opposed to 70% with the previous filter
(Andersen A. , 2007). They have removed the cavitation unit - the highest pressure loss
contributor, left the nitrogen unit as an optional unit of the system and developed the C2E-
disinfection to be more efficient.

Low conductivity in the water is related to the salinity of the water making conducting ballast
water in brackish water or freshwater unfavorable, due to the noticeably higher energy
consumption of disinfection generating process (Gregg et al., 2009). Oceansaver has solved this
challenge by requiring a separate back-up tank for sea water or storage possibilities in the AFT
peak tank for use when water conditions are not optimal.

Filter: The automatic drum filter with vacuum back-flush has a 40 um mesh and should remove
99% of the microorganisms over 50um (Bærheim, 2012)(figure19). The particularity with this
filter is the cleaning sequence of the wire mesh. Instead of generating a back-flush sequence to
remove the contamination stuck in the filter, by using great amounts of the already treated
water, the filter “vacuums” out the microorganisms and suspended solids in the wire mesh with
several vacuum nozzles. This cleaning procedure requires a suction force of 1.6 bars, and should

53
produce a better cleaning result than back-flushing with water. The separated sludge gets
flushed back to the origin, where it came from. As all automated filter systems, the cleaning
sequence of the filter starts when the pressure over the filter passes a set value, or time (0,4
bars). The overall pressure loss of the filter is normally 0.1 bars when clean.

Figure 19 Filter with vacuum cleaning of the filter-mesh (Oceansaver, 2012)

Disinfectant unit – C2E: The disinfectant is produced in situ by an electrodialytic reactor (figure
20). This is done by side-streaming approximately 1.5% of the total conducted ballast water out
of the main flow. The water is lead
through the reactor, which has a
cathode and anode separated by a
ceramic membrane. By applying a
current to the cell, the generation of
disinfectant initiates. The
conductivity in the seawater
(normally 30 PSU), will lead the
current through the water, creating a
disinfectant based on hypobromeous
species from the bromous species
Figure 20 Disinfectant unit C2E (Oceansaver, 2012)
found in seawater. The disinfectant is
then reintroduced to the main flow and distributed evenly in the water due to the turbulent
conditions. The reactor should produce 1.6 – 2 mg/l disinfectant. (Bærheim, 2012)

54
Neutralization: The disinfectant has a half-life of 30 minutes, leaving enough time for the
disinfection process and for degrading before discharge. Should the TRO levels exceed the
required values when discharged, a neutralization agent (sodium-thiosulfate) is added to the
discharged flow to secure safe environmental conditions.

Nitrogen supersaturation: Low oxygen environments have proven to be a corrosion inhibitor.


Oceansaver has, therefore, given the customer the possibility of adding a nitrogen
supersaturation device in the treatment system. The nitrogen supersaturation device is based
on membrane separation replacing the oxygen molecules with nitrogen by utilizing the fact that
oxygen and CO2 contains a higher permeability rate than nitrogen and diffuses through the
membrane walls, while the nitrogen with a lower permeability rate remains and is mixed with
the water. The process creates a low oxygen environment of 3 mg/l opposed to 10 mg/l in
normal seawater. Reduction of free oxygen, which is known to increase the corrosion rate and is
the basis for the aerobic microorganisms respiration process, is obviously a positive application
to the vessel, especially if there is poor coating in the ballast tank.
(Anwar, 2010)

Process control: The “Mark 2” treatment system has backward process control of the
production of disinfectant with the TRO sensor – insuring that enough disinfectant is produced
for the treatment to be sufficient. The system has double control of potential hazardous heating
with flow and temperature transmitters. The salinity is measured in relation to the high
conductive environment needed for the process. If the salinity drops below 20 PSU, an external
seawater tank replaces the side stream influent water, providing water with sufficient
conductive properties for the process. (Bærheim, 2012) The process compensates by adding
more energy to the electrodes when the process parameters are not optimal to produce
sufficient amounts of disinfectant. TRO is measured in the ballast tanks make sure the
disinfectant has degraded to 0.2 TRO before discharging the ballast water.

55
Byproducts from process:

When producing hypobromide from seawater hydrogen and oxygen can separate from the
water and accumulate to hazardous amounts (4ppm). In the Mark 2 treatment system the free
hydrogen is removed in the C2E unit in the fluid phase by a multiphase separator, then diluted
and ventilated (Andersen A. B., 2012).During water conditions with high NOM values, the
process will produce more byproducts (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004). The reaction rate
properties and amounts are temperature dependent. This is described more in detail in the
technology review section.

Cleaning of equipment/ maintenance

The obvious maintenance would be on the filter unit, changing vacuum nozzles etc. However,
less maintenance is expected on a filter unit with vacuum cleaning, than a unit then on a
conventional candle filter, because of its more robust cleaning sequence.

The C2E unit will possibly need some maintenance due to fouling on the membranes
(Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004). The sensors must be cleaned, calibrated and tested regularly. The
neutralization substance must also be refilled on regular basis.

Predicted market targets: “The Mark 2” treatment system can treat capacities up to 8000 m3/h
and as low as 500m/h. This excludes the smaller vessels and introduces possibilities in the
market for high ballast dependent vessels. However, providing filters to treat large flows is
space demanding. The treatment system requires some piping between a separate tank or an
aft peak tank, making the system not applicable for sea-born installation and rather complicated
to retrofit. This makes the Mark 2 system a good alternative for vessels that are to be built with
medium capacity ballast pumps.

56
System process weaknesses:

The process weakness of an electrolysis process is related to process parameters needed for
generating enough disinfectant to accomplish efficient treatment. This is abnormal influent
quality, temperature, and salinity. This does not have to be considered by a user of the “Mark 2”
system, due to the storage tanks.

If the ceramic membranes, anode or cathode in the reactor become contaminated and cannot
fulfill its function, the process can be affected. If the cleaning sequence of filters does not work
properly, the system will need to shut-down. (Mouawad, 2012) If the hydrogen separation
process does not work properly, hazardous amounts of hydrogen can accumulate.

Treatment failure scenarios.

Scenario 1: Cleaning process of filter fails  High organic load in to disinfecting step 
Reactor is not dimensioned to provide sufficient disinfection for levels of organic load
Treatment requirement not met.

Scenario 2: Hydrogen separation process does not work  System shutdown  Treatment not
completed.

Scenario 3: Contamination of critical parts of reactor  Reactor not able to produce enough
disinfectant Treatment requirement not met.

57
2.7.5 Optimarine
System

The Optimarin BWT-system is based on a 2 step treatment process; Filtration and UV- radiation
(figure 21). The presence of the filter is to secure low turbid conditions for the UV step, by first
filtrating away 99% of the suspended solids over 40um and 99% ( in practice 70%) (Andersen A. ,
2007) of the microorganisms above 50micron. The water goes through a two way treatment,
through the UV unit to inactivate regrowth of microorganisms in the ballast tanks to meet the
IMO required treatment limits before discharge. (Optimarin, 2010)

Boll&Kirch UV reactors
filter

Figure 21 Optimarin BWMS

Filtration: The water passes through a “Boll & Kirch” filter with several 40um wire mesh filers
formed as candle sticks. When the pressure difference over the filter reaches a set point (0.7
bars) the particular filter gets removed from the main flow and back-flushed. The back-flushing
sequence requires large volumes of treated water, decreasing the gross volume of treated
water. The candle filters have had some problems with handling algae blooms and back-
flushing in general (Cangelosi et. al, 2011). Under the flushing sequence the organic matter and
suspended solids in the wire mesh on the center of the candle suffer from the “path of lowest

58
resistance” property of fluid dynamics leaving organic matter in the areas furthest away from
the back-flush inlet un-removed. The filters have also had a tendency to let particles over 50um
through the mesh. The pressure needed for back-flushing can be provided by the ballast pump.
(Bollfilter, 2006) The flow out of the filter is variable and related to how often a candle needs to
be back-flushed. (Mouawad, 2012)

Mikrokill-UV radiation unit: The UV unit consists of medium pressure–high intensity lamps
operating with a wavelength of 254 nm. The purpose of radiating the water is to deactivate the
microorganism’s ability to reproduce. The intensity should at all times be over 100 mJ/cm2, an
alarm should go off, if the intensity drops beneath this point. The value is based on an empirical
relation between treatment results and radiation intensity required to meet the IMO guideline
standard. UV–quartz sleeves have a mechanical cleaning arm, which also cleans the sensor
when the intensity drops due to contamination on the glass. The chamber has an intensity-
sensor that measures the transmission and indirectly, the quality of the treatment. The system
also provides a temperature sensor and a flow-transmitter, providing security against
overheating. The UV- unit has an energy regulator that gives the user a possibility to reduce the
energy consumption during good water conditions. (Steinsvik, 2012)

Maintenance: The filter will need regular maintenance and replacing of mesh candles that have
accumulated suspended solids and organic matter. The quarts sleeves will need some chemical
and physical cleaning for fouling and opaque film caused by burning of organic matter and iron
in the water. The lamps will have a lifetime of approximately one year.

Predicted market targets: The Optimarin treatment system targets the < 1000 m3/h ballast
pump capacity vessels. This is due to the fact that the treatment process is rather energy
consuming, compared to other technologies. The footprint becomes large when needing to
filter large volumes of water. In spite of this the treatment system is a good alternative for
smaller vessels with smaller ballast pumps because of its beneficial modularity and simplicity of
the system.

59
System process weaknesses: There are challenges related to the filter, being very vulnerable
against high turbidity, specifically during algae blooming. A disadvantage of using UV is that it
has an absolute dependency on low turbid conditions. If the conditions are not optimal the
treatment results will have problems meeting the D2 requirement. (Cangelosi et. al, 2011)

Treatment failure scenarios

Scenario 1: Filter gets clogged If bypass – low turbidity, if not – stop in treatment
Treatment requirement not met

Scenario 2: Sensors are contaminated and don’t work properly  Information of process
failure does not get communicated to the process Flow can vary Can result in high
temperatures Potential hazardous situation

Scenario 3: Operation in water with high turbidity or NOM values Filter gets clogged, UV unit
cannot reach needed intensity Treatment requirement not met

Scenario 4: Fouling on UV quartz sleeves Low intensity Treatment requirement not met

60
2.7.6 Techcross: Electr- Cleen
System overview:

The Techcross “Electro-Cleen” is based on a one step treatment process – electrolysis (figure 22).
The reactor is placed on the main ballast water pipe opposed to other electrolysis processes
which side stream some of the sea water to generate disinfectant and adding this to the main
flow. Not needing to side stream water saves space and piping, but means that the process is
dependent on the water conditions at the ballasting site. This may result in great variations of
water quality and no possibilities to store high saline water for expected brackish/ fresh - water
voyages. In the reactor, current is applied to the cells, creating active substance (NaOCl-) from
the natural levels of chlorine in the sea water (Techcross, 2011). The disinfectant works as an
oxidant, breaking down the cell membranes of aquatic organisms. The on-situ production of
biocides is a cost effective and non-spacious way of disinfecting the ballast water, not needing
to purchase chemicals, store and transport them.

Figure 22 Electrocleen flow diagram

The system has no pre-treatment by filtration, resulting in an extremely variable organic load.
The positive side of not having a filter in the system is the removal of the risk of clogging and a
footprint reduction by over 50%, making the treatment system more applicable to narrow-

61
spaced retrofit installations. However not having the filter can introduce millions of 50 um
microorganisms and large sediments to the main treatment step, hence needing to apply a
higher dose of biocides.

The holding time required is 6 hours. This is to assure that the biocides have had enough time to
kill the targeted organisms and decompose to required levels. If the required level of biocide
degradation is not reached before discharge, the TRO sensor gives a signal for the neutralization
unit to add sodium thio-sulfate to the ballast water. This should reduce the TRO levels to 0.2
ppm respectively. (Techcross, 2011)

Process monitoring: The amount of inputted current to the cells is a backward controlled
process where the TRO-sensor after the reactor measures the amount of TRO produced against
an empirical value proved to have been and adequate amount to achieve D2 standards. The
voltage input is also controlled by the conductivity in the water measured by a conductivity
sensor in front of the reactor. The voltage will increasing the current if the conductivity is low to
compensate. There is a flow transmitter and temperature transmitter, giving a double security
against hazardous temperatures. The TRO level in the ballast water before discharge, decides if
and how much neutralizer is to be added to the process. (Hong, 2012)

Byproducts from process: When producing hypobromide from seawater, hydrogen and oxygen
can separate from the water and accumulate to hazardous amounts (4ppm). During water
conditions with high NOM values, the process will produce more byproducts (Tchobanoglous et.
al, 2004). The reaction rate properties and amounts are temperature, pH and salinity dependent.
This is described more detailed in the technology review section.

Maintenance: Techcross claims that the cleaning of the reactors is only necessary in a frequency
that follows dry-docking. Due to the limited operational data available, this cannot be confirmed.
However it is reason to believe that there would be some fouling on the anode, cathode during
operation and when in standby. Furthermore some accumulation of suspended solids is
expected, resulting in the reactor requiring regularly cleaning. Some suppliers change the
polarity on each electrode to remove sediments, Techcross does not do this. In spite of

62
Techcross’ claims of there being no accumulation of suspended solids and fouling, they will in
the nearest future provide a chemical cleaning unit that will conduct a cleaning sequence
regularly. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the reactor if a cleaning liquid is not applied,
must be dismantled and cleaned regularly. (Berntzen, 2010)

The neutralization unit needs to be filled once every month, and the proportioned supply will
satisfy the needs for one year of consumption. (Techcross, 2011)

Predicted market targets: The pressure loss through the system is very low due to few
components and lack of a filter. The pressure loss should be under 1 bar, making the treatment
system applicable for use with most existing ballast pumps on retrofits.

The fact that the system has difficulties running the treatment process in fresh, brackish and
cold water conditions, may limit the competitiveness for vessels running regularly in
freshwater/ brackish water.

Being able mount the reactor directly on the main stream pipe makes the system very modular.
Further there not being a requirement for external water tanks for storing saline water, makes
the system more competitive on the retrofit market.

The system treats the water only on intake, introducing the possibility to discharge gravity-
based.

The system should also be competitive for middle sized high and low dependent vessels that do
not have trading routes up rivers or in freshwater.

63
Weaknesses in the process: The weaknesses of electrolytic based treatment is the high energy
requirement needed to produce chlorine in low saline/ low ionic water, and the slow reaction
rate in cold water. Due to the fact that neither salt can be added in this particular system, nor
water with high ionic concentration can be stored, makes the dependence of high ionic water
conditions (saltwater) where the ballast water is conducted, essential.

The hydrogen produced is not diluted, as done in other electrolysis based technologies do. This
is according to Techcross, due to the low concentrations produced (Hong, 2012). However,
where there is hydrogen produced, hydrogen can get accumulated.

Techcross claims that, because of the low amounts of chlorine produced in the process,
hazardous amounts of hydrogen will not be produced. However, a ventilated outlet is provided
for safety reasons. (Hong, 2012)

Process failures

Scenario 1: Too low conductivity  Not enough disinfectant produced  Treatment


requirement not met

Scenario 2: Low temperature conditions  Not enough disinfectant produced  Treatment


requirement not met

Scenario 3: High organic load  Not enough disinfectant is produced Treatment


requirement not met

64
2.7.7 N.E.I – Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS)
System description:

N.E.I – Venturi Oxygen Stripping is a single step treatment system based on de–aerating the
ballast water in the tanks with an inert gas generator (figure 23). A generator generates inert
gas mixing it in the ballast water by cavitation to achieve 1% oxygen in the treated water. The
aerobe organisms’ metabolism is dependent on oxygen to reproduce. Removing this property,
limits the re-growth of microorganisms. To secure sufficient treatment, microorganisms should
be exposed to the low oxygen environment for at least 4 days (Anwar, 2010). The pH will be
reduced in the ballast tanks from 8 to 6 due to the “hypoxic” – low oxygen conditions
(Huybregts, 2005). However, it has been proved that this parameter does not have disinfecting
properties (Bolch et al., 1993).

The generator used to produce the low oxygen gas can also be used to provide inert gas to the
cargo tanks at sea. (N.E.I-VOS, 2011) The byproduct of the process – gas separated in the ballast
tanks - is ventilated out of the tanks on deck.

During the discharging process the gas is


passed through the generator again for re-
aeration. Simultaneously, low oxygen gas is
inserted into the tanks, keeping the low
oxygen environment for corrosion inhibition.
An aerated ballast tank can potentially be
one of the most corrosive environments on a
ship, making the overall life cycle of a ship
often limited by the lifetime of the ballast
tank. Restricting the corrosive environment is

Figure 23 N.E.I VOS flow diagram


therefore a great advantage. (Anwar, 2010)
The system goes under the name; Mitsubishi
–VOS in Japan, and Samsung–VOS in Korea.

65
(Anwar, 2010)

How the inert gas works: Aerobic microorganisms survive on the small amounts of dissolved
oxygen in the atmosphere that is in equilibrium with oxygen in the air. Low oxygen
concentration gas strips the dissolved oxygen out of a fraction of the water. When the ballast
pumps start and the gas is mixed with the intaken ballast water, a new equilibrium is
established with the inert gas that has a 95% lower oxygen level then air. When gas bobbles
pass through the water, the dissolved oxygen differs from the water to the gas phase, as the
water establishes a new equilibrium with a 95% lower oxygen properties. Aerobic
microorganisms have difficulties surviving the low oxygen environment, making the process
very efficient. (N.E.I-VOS, 2011)

Generator: The low oxygen inert gas is made by a high temperature burner called a gas stripper
generator. Similar technology is used to inert flammable cargo tanks. (Anwar, 2010)

Process control: The treatment process is well controlled with an oxygen analyzer and flow
transmitter. If the process does not proceed as expected, the irregular conditions make an
alarm go off and the process is shut down. Back-up systems for control processes are also
available in case of a power loss.

The deck ventilation is controlled with a pressure sensor and ventilation check valves for the
discharge of CO2.

Maintenance: Little operational data is recorded on the N.E.I VOS treatment system. The
generator will most probably need maintenance. Valves and critical parts need regular
inspection. Compared to others, the treatment system is simple and has few components.
Therefore, little maintenance will probably be needed.

Predicted marked targets:

The N.E.I VOS system should have a market advantage on long haul - high ballast dependent
vessels, due to the low pressure loss, low energy consumption and high capacity ranges of the
system. The system can also be provided with explosion-safe components. The system has a

66
small footprint due to the single step treatment and will be able to fit most vessels. However,
the piping required is complicated due to the separate piping needed for the inert gas filling of
the tanks when removing the ballast water, making it complicated to retrofit. The system can
provide some corrosion inhibiting effect, if the ballast tank is not coated (Tamburri et. al, 2003).

Due to the oxygen addition before discharge, the system cannot discharge without this. Ship-
owners that prefer gravity-based discharge will get this possibility with a NEI VOS system.

System process weaknesses: The treatment process is not affected by temperature, organic
load, salinity or suspended solids. There is no filter that can be clogged. However, the system is
dependent on a functioning gas generator and presence of aerobic microorganisms. If the
voyage is shorter than 4 days, the system could struggle to meet the requirements (Tamburri et.
al, 2003). Facultative anaerobic organisms can survive in aerobic conditions, in spite of them not
utilizing oxygen for reproduction, as opposed to anaerobic organisms which cannot survive in an
aerobic atmosphere (Tchobanoglous et. al, 2004). Hence, facultative anaerobic organisms will
not be affected by the treatment process. The presence of microorganisms with these
properties in ballast water should be further investigated.

If the water is not aerated properly during discharge, water with low oxygen will be discharged.
In shallow water this can lead to eutrophication, causing environmental harm providing
unnatural algae blooms and killing aquatic life with the adverse water quality (Thiyagarajan et.
al, 2007).

Treatment failure scenarios.

Scenario 1: Generator fails to produce inert gas Treatment failure

Scenario 2: Anaerobe microorganisms present in the influent Low oxygen atmosphere not a
limiting factor for growth Treatment requirement not met

Scenario 3: Non adequate levels of inert gas produced  Oxygen present in the ballast tanks
Treatment requirement not met

67
Scenario 4: Generator fails to generate oxygen at discharge  Water with low oxygen levels
Environmental problem

68
3 Decision-making tool

3.1 Model description:


The model is divided into four stages (figure24). The two first stages have one sheet for input
and one for reference. Before proceeding to a new stage these sheets should be compared and
produce an output. The information inputted by the user represents the needs of the costumer.
The preset values represent the performance of treatment systems from key suppliers of BWMS.
The criteria are the same for all systems making a comparison between treatment systems
possible.

Green colored sheets are for input and red colored sheets for the consultant to pre-define. Blue
sheets are for results.

Figure 24 Flow diagram, describing the decision-making tool

69
Why use “Excel” to program the decision-making tool

Several programming tools could have been used for the decision-making tool. The tool could
have been programmed in “Python”, “C+” or “Matlab”.

Matlab is a very expensive program, and would require elementary programming skills to adjust
parameters or generate new charts.

Excel is a well-known programming tool that is very user friendly. Most employees in DNV have
access and basic knowledge of how to use the program and can easily adjust parameters and
generate new outputs. Excel is also a part of the Office package and is therefore, an inexpensive
alternative.

How to use the model

The model should both give an empirical and objective approach to the selection process of a
BWMS. Obviously every vessel has its limitations and individual characteristics. All of these
cannot be covered by a generalized decision-making tool. The tool should, therefore, only assist
in the decision-making process not provide the final solution. The tool is designed to be able to
be exapanded to include new BWTS systems that are in the process of getting a type approval
by IMO.

70
Grade system

When putting in a value between 0 (no relevance) and 1 (very relevant), being able to justify,
track and decide what the value should be, can be complicated. Manufactures can demand a
justification for the low score assigned by the consultant, or the customer can find it difficult
illustrating what the score represents in practice. Assigned to each cell a decision support-tool is
provided, which will quantify the value to be inputted by describing the characteristic and
measuring it against practical limitations.

A practical example from


the decision-making tool is
illustrated in figure 25.
Here the challenge is
characterizing a system by
assigning a score to
according how well it
performs in highly turbid
conditions. If the treatment
process is unaffected by
treating water with

turbidity of 30 NTU (natural


Figure 25 Support sheet for consultant turbidity units), the
treatment system will
score 100% on this criteria. This requires a linear approximation of the relationship between
turbidity and treatment result, which is most often not the situation. It must therefore be
emphasized that the support sheet is only an assisting tool.

71
Figure 26 Support tool for customer

If the customer has difficulties defining how important a good performance in highly turbid
water is for him/ her, the support sheet illustrated in figure 26 is provided. It backs up the fact
that if “no effect on the treatment process” is the accepted outcome for the customer, the
criterion has to be weighted high. Also here a linear relationship between frequency and
outcome is chosen. This will most likely not be correct in this situation. However, the point
being to introduce the work methodology in this thesis, limited work is done in the evaluation
process of the scoring on each support sheet.

For characteristics that relate to a metric value, the value gives little meaning. For the value to
be relative, it has to be transformed into a coefficient. Therefore, all value inputs have been
transformed into coefficients .The lowest value gets subtracted from the highest and the
product gets divided by the number of values present, outputting a coefficient number that
makes comparison easy.

72
3.2 Stage 1 - Qualification
Stage 1 is based on an initial selection of critical parameters that will make a system qualified
for the matching stage. The idea behind the qualification stage is that a treatment system is
useless for the customer if it does not fulfill critical functions. An example of this could be a
system that;

 Is not able to provide equipment for an EX safe zone


 does not meet the ballast pumps capacity or energy limits on a retrofit installation
 Is based on treatment with active substances when the customer requires a system that
is without active substances.

No matter how well the treatment system meets the customer’s detailed needs, a treatment
system that does not comply with the vessel’s critical functions will result in the system being
unsuitable. Not providing such a prequalification could result in a confusing final matching
comparison - where a system could seem to match the vessel’s detailed needs and limitations
very well, but in fact lacks fundamental properties that are required.

The input in the qualification stage is with the binary numbers 0 and 1. The input of 0 represents
– no, and 1, represents yes. The criteria should be so general that they should apply to most
vessels. If there is missing critical factors for a vessel, this can be added when the consultant
gets access to detailed vessel data.

73
Figure 27 Output of the qualification stage

The output of “Stage 1 – Qualification” assigns each cell, representing a system on the
“qualification” sheet, a red or green or yellow background color(figure 27). Green denotes
“qualified”, red denotes “not qualified” and yellow denotes “a non-critical mismatch”. A non-
critical mismatch relates to when the customer does not have a critical need on the specific
function, however, the system can provide this function. Only systems without any red cells can
move to the next stage. The only relevant output is what systems passed the qualification
illustrated on the first row, not how well they are qualified. The reasoning behind this is that a
treatment system with small non-critical mismatches can, nevertheless, be an adequate
treatment system when evaluated on a more detailed level.

74
3.3 Stage 2 – Weighting of criteria
Stage 2 - is weighting the criteria on a more detailed level. Each category has several criteria
that should describe important considerations related to the installation of a BWTS. Its purpose
is to find out two things:

 Verify that the perception of what the ship-owner thinks he needs is really what is
needed.
 Secure that a system with qualities that are higher on irrelevant areas and lower in
relevant areas does not get outputted as a good alternative.

The input sheet gives the costumer the possibility to weigh how important the criteria are for
the specific vessel. Values between 0 – 1 are to be inputted. 0 - being “not valued”, and 1 being
“highly valued”. The second sheet has criteria corresponding with the input sheet, but pre-set
by the consultant as in stage 1. The sheet should describe how well the criterion has been met
by each treatment system and provide a rationale for the score given. The input and pre-
defined values have the same range for a more comparable evaluation.

The customer may have positive or negative experiences with parts of the technology used in a
system. Instead of discarding systems with such technology in the qualification stage, the
customer now has the option to weight the importance of having the particular process in the
output system.

Naturally the customer will find it difficult to decide whether he/she should input for example a
0, 6 or 0, 4 value in the cell. Furthermore the supplier will probably want to know the
consultant’s rationale behind the score assigned to a criterion for a system. This is handled by a
“Consequence/Frequency Diagram” that is hyperlinked to each cell. The costumer is to find the
corresponding point of each value on the chart, then inputs the value in the assigned cell.

The consultant may find it challenging to assign values to characteristics of each cell. This
challenge is dealt with by also here using a “Performance/ Outcome –Diagram”. The consultant
highlights a cell that represents the system, and then inputs the assigned value. For traceability
purposes, the consultant should add a note to each chosen cell.

75
The Stage 2 output should provide data that will give an indication of how important each of the
categories is for the customer.

76
3.4 Stage 3 - Matching (calculations)
Stage 3 – Matching applies the weighted criteria and compares it to system qualities. The values
are averaged and summed up. The averaged values are to be used for the transparency. The
summed values are to be used for defining a grade of harmony between customer needs and
system characteristics.

Harmonization: A perfect harmonization is where the system delivers only what is needed for
the customer, not more, and not less.

Harmony between
Treatment
System 1 and customers needs
performance (positive differential not valued)

Operation Vendor reputation

System 1

Installation Expenses

Figure 28 An example of a harmonization between a treatment system and a customer’s needs

The harmonization value is calculated by:

Summing up all the customer’s weighted criteria values and all the system performance values
and comparing these totals. If the output is exactly the same in all categories, then the
performance and needs are in perfect harmony – 100%. If there is a differential sum, the
calculation tool will output harmonization value.

The user must be reminded that if a treatment system has excellent qualities on a criterion that
is of low interest for the customer, this high scoring on that specific criteria will not influence
the harmony value in a positive way. Whereas a treatment system that has poor qualities on a
criterion that is of high interest or importance for the customer will influence the harmony

77
value. (Only negative discrepancies influence the rating.) This has been implemented in the
system configuration value. To integrate this ground rule into the tool, an “if function” is used
in the system configured value cell. If the system value is higher than the weighting value, the
cell will output the weighting value. The reason for this is because a system with good qualities
in an area of little interest, should not decrease the harmonization value. However, if the
system value is lower than the weighted value, the values are multiplied to decrease the
harmonization.

Transparency: Transparency is matched by calculating the average score of criteria within a


category. There are no configured values here. The average category values are compared in a
radar chart. The calculations that make up the foundation for visualizing the distribution of
performance/need transparency, are calculated by taking the average category score and
dividing it by the total score, giving a value as a fraction of 1.

Customer category weighting: is calculated the same way as the “distribution of

performance/need” value is. This can be changed as described in the “weighting stage” if it does

not comply with the customer’s scope.

78
3.5 Stage 4 – Visualization

The visualization stage should indicate how well the treatment system complies with the
customer’s needs (harmonization), also giving an indication of how far from full transparency
the results are. The Radar Chart provides such a possibility, illustrating all categories and
how.well the categories are met by the system in a spider web

Transparency: Two types of transparency will be visualized: Average transparency and


distribution of performance/need transparency.

The average transparency visualization’s strength is that illustrates the difference between an
overall good system and an overall weak system (in a selection process), when compared to
other systems in addition to the costumers needs. This is done by outputting different sized
surface areas based on a larger average score value on each category. A good overall system will,
therefore, have a larger surface area on the radar chart compared to a weak system. At the
same time the radar chart can give us an impression whether the system fulfills the customer’s
needs or not. In figurexxx we can see that “system 1” has an overall performance that is better
than system 2, due to the larger surface area. However, this does not mean that the system is
better suited for the customer. The below chart shows that system 1 (the red line) is the overall
best system (though not for this customer because installation and reputation are low).

79
Transparency of average values

Treatment
performance
1,0
0,8
0,6 Customer Category
0,4 Vendor Weighting
Operation
0,2 reputation
System 1
0,0

System 2

Installation Expenses

Figure 29 An example of a transparency between two systems and the customer's needs

The distribution of performance/need transparency visualization chart will illustrate how well
the average score of the system within each category, complies with the customer’s needs. The
surface areas in a distribution transparency visualization will always add up 1, both for the
customer’s needs and the system performance. (As opposed to in a transparency average value
comparison, where the surface area of a system can be half the customer’s.) As shown in figure
30 below “system 1” and “system 2” are visualized with the same distribution of qualities
(average scores). However, system 2 actually has been simulated (in the figure below) to have
half the score value on each category in comparison to system 1. The distribution transparency
does not illustrate this important information.

80
Transparency of distribution of performance/need
Treatment
performance
0,40
0,30
Customer weight
0,20 Vendor
Operation fraction of 1
0,10 reputation
System 1
0,00

System 2

Installation Expenses

Figure 30 An example of distribution of performance/ need between two treatment systems and a customer’s needs

81
Figure 31 Qualities the customer has weighted

The customer weighting chart (figure 30) illustrates how important the categories are to the
customer after answering a detailed criteria survey. The purpose of the customer weighting
chart is to verify that this is the actual need of the customer. This is a challenge in a situation
where the customer’s weighting does not comply with what he/she might think is important.
Criteria might have been important at a detailed level, but can be misconceiving in the bigger
picture. (For example, when the customer has a project scope of reducing cost compared to
earlier BWMS investments.) If this happens, the customer must go back to step 2 and decrease
the other categories to receive a criteria weighting that will better comply with the customer’s
scope.

82
3.6 Output
Full transparency will never be achieved because in reality the perfect system has a full score on
all parameters.

Validation of model:

When creating a generalized model, it is very challenging to cover every aspect of the
installation process. A practical way of dealing with this is to study where the limiting factors of
the model can occur. Vessels have differences and limitations that cannot be described fully
through a generalized model. Customers also have different approaches to needs and
challenges.

Two scenarios have been detected by logic trial and error, which can give a final output that is
not optimal for the customer.

Scenario 1: In a situation where a parameter has low importance for the customer and the
system can provide good results on the parameter, the configured value of the treatment
system is set to the needed value of the customer. In order to stay competitive, manufacturer’s
strengths in certain fields, will most likely result in weaknesses in other fields which may be
more relevant for the customer. This is not shown in the comparison and this is why
transparency is needed.

Scenario 2: Critical needs for the customer will not be weighted heavy enough on a matching
stage in a category with many parameters. These must always be moved to the qualification
stage. To illustrate this, a customer has a retrofit vessel that is old and has a ballast tank that
suffers from corrosion. Corrosion in a ballast tank is often the limiting factor in the life cycle of a
vessel. To prevent further corrosion the customer specifies the high importance for a corrosion
inhibiting system – valuing this criteria at 1, however the other treatment parameters have little
importance and the customer values these to have 0,2 importance. For a system with poor
corrosion inhibiting qualities valued 0,2, but and good overall treatment qualities valued 0,9
the model still provides the user with a harmony value of 65%. (Here we see a final output
which does not reflect an optimal system for the customer.

83
Another weakness is the value provided by the suppliers. The modularity and footprint criteria
under the installation category have a great amount of uncertainty connected to them. A
retrofit of large equipment such as a BWMS is an extremely complicated operation which
sometimes results in the need to move existing piping and equipment on the vessel. This is
extremely costly and the consultant will need to have adequate knowledge, preferably hands on
experience of how modular the different treatment system are and how much space is needed
around each unit for it to be installed on the vessel. This must be taken into consideration.

The expense category is also considered to involve very uncertain values. This is due to the
different perceptions suppliers have to what is included in OPEX, how much maintenance will be
needed, and the lifetime of the components. CAPEX is very difficult to generalize, because it is
based on the deal the ship-owner has managed to negotiate with the supplier.

Verification of model:

A method of verifying if the model outputs good results, is to compare the final output with a
vessel where an empirical approach has been used to determine what system should be
implemented. However, this requires that the same systems have been in both feasibility
studies. Due to constraints related to time and volume, it was not possible to include such a
comparison within the scope of work of this master’s thesis. However such a comparison
should be considered a natural subsequent task, before using the model in a workshop.

84
4 Conclusion

The IMO ballast water convention is on the verge of getting ratified. The sudden change in
ballast water operational practice will result in the shipping industry needing to adjust their
vessels to meet the new requirements by installing a treatment system. At present, there is
limited knowledge and experience in the industry in relation to installing and using treatment
technology for ballast water. Therefore, a decision-making tool covering these aspects would be
useful.

A decision-making tool has been designed that is intended to provide the ship-owner with an
overview of how he value scores different categories of criteria related to ballast water
treatment and information regarding what system will provide the best match in relation to the
needs. Harmonizing and transparency results can be deducted from the model.

The complexity of the many aspects around installing the treatment system and how well they
work, in addition to there being little operational data available, has given many ship-owners
cold feet. This has resulted in many of them waiting on the sidelines until they are forced to take
action to install a BWMS. When a ship-owner decides on what BWMS is to be used for their
fleet, price and references are often the paramount requirements. The aspects around the
technology used for BWTS presented in this study, emphasizes long-term profit by choosing a
system that meets the operational patterns of the fleet, rather than a system based on a
technology that does not suit the operational pattern but is more economical to purchase and
install in a short term perspective.

The rationale behind the system characteristic scoring is based on extensive study of the
systems and their strengths and weaknesses. The study verifies the importance of third party
verification of data and information given by manufacturers. Information and data provided
from manufacture and independent research have shown to have little correlation.

85
Due to the fact that most of the technology compositions are relatively new, little operational
data is available to support the strengths and weaknesses characterized in the thesis. However,
research presented in this thesis provides an indication.

Studies of the technologies used for BWTS have shown that all technologies have limitations
and advantages in different water qualities. It is not possible to point out a superior treatment
technology for use on ballast water, due to the great variations in water quality where ships
need to conduct ballast water. However, it was eye opening that a “direct contact” electrolysis
processes showed to be so vulnerable to water conditions frequently exposed to vessels in
relation to ballast water operations – cold and low saline water. Furthermore the wire filter has
proved to be vulnerable to clogging when treating highly turbid water with algae blooms. Such
conditions are common near ports where ballast water operations are conducted. .

Operational ship knowledge, related to ballast water operations, has been presented in order to
provide a better and more inclusive overview of relevant criteria on the operational category.

This thesis attempts to prove that it is possible to make a generalized decision-making tool that
can be used on a wide range of vessels with different ballast water operational routines. A
natural result or progression of the work presented in this thesis would be to run a workshop
with a ship-owner who needs assistance in the decision-making process when selecting a
treatment system for a fleet. The decision-making tool can also provide a verification of a BWTS
selection that has already been made for a fleet.

86
5 Bibliography
Advisory, A.-B. W. (2011). Retrieved 04 01, 2012, from
http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/References/A
BS%20Advisories/BWTreatmentAdv

Alfalaval. (2010). alfalaval.com. Retrieved 02 01, 2012, from http://www.alfalaval.com/solution-


finder/products/pureballast/pages/documentation.aspx

Alvan, J. (2012, 03 03). tecnical manager Alfawall. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Andersen, A. (2007). Oceansaver Ballast Water Management System. Retrieved 05 05, 2012, from Tekna:
http://www.vannforeningen.no/ikbViewer/Content/19556/(7)%20Aage%20B%20Andersen.pdf

Andersen, A. B. (2012, 03 01). R&D manager Oceansaver. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Andreozzi, R. (1999). Advanced oxidation processes (AOP) for water purification and recovery. Catalysis
today, 51-54.

Anwar, N. (2010). Ballast water management. Withervys& Seamanship.

Apps-Laboratories, A. (n.d.). appslabs.com. Retrieved 02 03, 2012, from


http://www.appslabs.com.au/salinity.htm

Armstrong, G. (1997). Ballast system design for flow through exchange of ballast water. Trans I Mar E.
Vol 109, Part 3, 257-269.

Bærheim, G. (2012, 03 01). Technical manager, Oceansaver. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Berntzen, M. (2010). Guidelines for selection of a ship ballast water treatment system. Retrieved 11 20,
2011, from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF0QFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntnu.diva-
portal.org%2Fsmash%2Fget%2Fdiva2%3A371775%2FFULLTEXT01&ei=iZqrT7PVL4jY4QS3n5DTDQ
&usg=AFQjCNFJ1v31dy0rjWJXerkyG1GQj1NhwQ

Bolch et al. (1993). Chemical and physical options to kill toxic dinoflagellate cysts in ships' ballast water.
Journal of Marine and Environmental engineering 1: 23-29, 23-29.

Bollfilter. (2006). Bollfilter.com. Retrieved 02 01, 2012, from


http://www.bollfilter.com/file/pdfs/6_18_2_BWT_engl.pdf

Bolton et. al. (2008). Ultraviolate Disinfection Handbook. Retrieved 05 01, 2012, from
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/lt2/pdfs/guide_lt2_uvguidance.pdf

87
Burns, R. (1999). Effect of inorganic ions in heterogeneous photocatalysis. J. Environ. Eng.125, 77-85.

Cangelosi et. al. (2011). Final Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater Testing of the AlfaWall AB
PureBallast® Ballast Water Treatment System. NEMWI.

Chong et. al. (2010). Recent developments in photocatalytic water treatment technology: A review.
Water Research: Volume 44, Issue 10, 2997–3027.

Clarke. (2011). Ultraviolet Light Disinfection in the Use of Individual Water Purification Devices. USAPHC.

Delacroix, S. (2012, 03 20). Project manager - bwms - NIVA. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Dokkum, K. V. (2008). Ship Knowledge. Dokmar maritime publishers B.V.

Eikebrokk, B. (2008). Tekna. Retrieved 02 22, 2012, from UV -desinfeksjon som hygiensk barriere:
Driftsforstyrrelser og effekter av slike:
https://www.tekna.no/ikbViewer/Content/747070/Eikebrokk.pdf

Eikebrokk, B. (2008). Veiledning for UV-desinfeksjon - rapport 164. Norsk Vann.

Eikebrokk, et. al. (2008). Veiledning for UV-desinfeksjon. Norsk Vann.

Farhataziz, Ross A.B. (1977). Selective specific rates of reactions of transients in water and aqueous
solutions solutions. Part III. Hydroxyl radical and perhydroxyl radical and their radical ions..
Retrieved 02 03, 2012, from http://www.nist.gov/data/nsrds/NSRDS-NBS-59.pdf

Filtersafe. (2012). Filtersafe.net. Retrieved 01 10, 2012, from


http://www.filtersafe.net/pdf/ballastsafe.pdf

Germanischer-Lloyds. (2010). Ballast water treatment technologies – a general note. Retrieved 02 02,
2012, from gl-group.com: http://www.gl-group.com/pdf/Ballast_water_treatment.pdf

Gregg et al. (2009). Review of two decades of progress in the development of management options for
reducing or eradicating phytoplankton, zooplankton and bacteria in ship's ballast water. Aquatic
Invasions (2009) Volume 4, Issue 3, 521-565.

Håkonsen, T. (2011). Biologisk Nitrogenfjerning - Lecture.

Håkonsen, T. (2011, 03 02). PHD, VA - Support. Lecture on water treatment. VA-support.

Hem, L. (2011, 10). Lecture on mambrane filtration .

Hendricks, D. (2006). Water treatment physical and chemical unit processes. IWA Pubilishing.

Herrmann, J. (1999). Heterogeneous photocatalysis: fundamentals and applications to the removal of


various types of aqueous pollutants. Catal. Today 53, 115–129.

88
Herwig et. al. (2006). Ozone treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry, biology
and toxixity. Maine ecology progress series, 49.

Hong, P. (2012, 03 10). technical manager - Techcross. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Huybregts, I. (2005). Potential of venturi oxygen stripping to stop ballast water invasions in freshwater
environments. Univeristy of Maryland.

Hydemarine. (2010). http://www.hydemarine.com/. Retrieved 02 02, 2012, from


http://www.hydemarine.com/documents/HydeGuardianTechBroch-3-2010.pdf

Hyde-Marine. (2010). Hydemarine.com. Retrieved 04 02, 2012, from


http://www.hydemarine.com/ballast_water/documents/GuardianBror239x12CalgonR-WEB.pdf

IMO. (1997). RESOLUTION A.868(20). Retrieved 02 01, 2012, from Guidelines for control and
management of a ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organizms and
pathogens: http://globallast.imo.org/868%20english.pdf

IMO. (2011). Compatibility between ballast water management systems and ballast tank coatings.
Retrieved 1 16, 2010, from http://www.nei-marine.com/images/pdf/MEPC_63-INF%209_-
_Compatibility_between_ballast_water_management_systems_and_ballast_tank_coatings_(IPPI
C)1%20highlighted.pdf

IMO. (2011). imo.org. Retrieved 01 15, 2012, from


http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/ballastwatermanagement/Pages/Default.aspx

Kvamme, V. (2010). Problemer og utfordringer knyttet til bruk av ballastvann. Høyskolen i Haugesund.

Lechevallier, Kwok-Keung. (2004). Process Efficiency in Achieving Safe Drinking Water. Retrieved 04 04,
2012, from WHO: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/watreatpath3.pdf

Lekang, O. I. (2012, 03 19). Professor - UMB. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Lenntech, B. (2011). Retrieved 04 04, 2012, from lenntech:


http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/calcium/calcium-and-water.htm

Liane, S. F. (2005). Driftsassistansen. Retrieved 02 04, 2012, from


http://www.driftsassistansen.org/admin/rapport_filer/DA%20Moere%20og%20Romsdal%20For
edrag%206.pdf

Malato et. al. (2009). Decontamination and disinfection of water by solar photocatalysis: Recent
overview and trends. Volume: 147, Issue: 1, Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV,, 1-59.

Morris. (1951). WHO. Retrieved 05 05, 2012, from


http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/S04.pdf

Mouawad, J. (2012, 04 30). Senior type appoval engineer DNV. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

89
N.E.I-VOS. (2011). http://www.nei-marine.com/. Retrieved 04 06, 2012, from http://www.nei-
marine.com/

Nanayakkara et. al. (2011). Electrochemical disinfection for ballast water management: technology
development and risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 63, Issues 5–12, 119–123.

NKCF. (2009). nko3.com. Retrieved 01 02, 2012, from http://www.nko3.com/NK%20Ballast_brochure.pdf

Northon et. al. (2000). Process Efficiency in Achieving Safe Drinking Water (WHO). Retrieved 03 03, 2012,
from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/watreatpath3.pdf

Oceansaver. (2012). Retrieved 05 10, 2012, from http://www.oceansaver.com/filtering.html

Oemcke, D. v. (1999). The treatment of ships ballast water. Ecoports Monograph Series No. 18.

Optimarin. (2010). optimarin.com. Retrieved 04 03, 2012, from


http://www.optimarin.com/visartikkel.asp?id=1063

Perrins et al. (2006). Ozonation of seawater from different locations: Formation ande decay of total
residual oxidantimplications for ballast water treatment. . Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 1023-
1033.

results, A. e. (n.d.).

Riggio, M. (2012, 03 01). Product Manager Hyde marine. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Schmelling. (2006). Ultraviolet disinfection guidance manual for the final ing term 2 enhaced surface
water treatment rule. Retrieved 05 01, 2012, from
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/lt2/pdfs/guide_lt2_uvguidance.pdf

Severin et al. (1983). Effects on temperature on ultraviolet light disinfection. Environmental science and
technology 17(12), 717-721.

Severntrent. (2012). Severntrent-services. Retrieved 05 03, 2012, from


http://www.severntrentservices.com/enews/vol31/electrolytic_technology.aspx

Sheoran, M. (2008). Advanced oxidation processes for the degradation of pesticides. Thapar University.

Stasinakis, A. (2008). Use of selected advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for wastewater treatment - a
mini review. Global NEST Journal, Vol 10, No 3, 376-385.

Steinsvik, K. (2012, 02 08). Technical manager - Optimarin. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Stocks et. al. (2004). Sodium hypochlorite as a ballast water biocide. Matheickal JT, Raaymakers S (eds),
Second International Symposium on Ballast Water Treatment. International Maritime
Organisation, London, 80-87.

90
Sverdrup, L. (2012, 03 22). Principal Specialist - DNV. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Sydberger, T. (2012, 04 28). Senior Engineer. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

Tamburri et. al. (2003). Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment to prevent
aquatic invasions and ship corrosion.

Tchobanoglous et. al. (2004). Disinfection with Ozone. In Wastewater engineering - treatment and reuse
(pp. 1286-1295). Metcalf & Eddy, McGraw-Hill.

Tchobanoglous et. al. (2004). Electrodialysis. In Wastewater engineering - treatment and reuse (pp. 1131-
1134). Metcalf & Eddy inc, McGraw-Hill.

Tchobanoglous et. al. (2004). Overview of biological wastewater treatment. In Wastewater engineering -
treatment and reuse (p. 550). Metcalf & Eddy, McGraw-Hill.

Tchobanoglous et. al. (2004). Overview of biological wastewater treatment. In (p. 550). . In Wastewater
engineering - treatment and reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, McGraw-Hill.

Tchobanoglous et. al. (2004). Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation Disinfection. In Wastewater engineering -
treatment and reuse (pp. 1298-1329). Metcalf & Eddy, McGraw-Hill.

Techcross. (2011). techcross.com. Retrieved 02 01, 2012, from


http://www.techcross.com/product/2011_Techcross_Brochure.pdf

Thiyagarajan et. al. (2007). Science tech entrepreneur. Retrieved 03 03, 2012, from Eutrophication :
http://www.techno-preneur.net/information-desk/sciencetech-
magazine/2007/june07/Eutrophication.pdf

Trümpler, D. K. (2010). Implementation of the BWMC Aspects in the Baltic and North Sea. Retrieved 04
02, 2012, from
http://www.maritimecenter.dk/public/dokumenter/EMUC/Konferencer/2012/Kai_%20Copenha
genBWMCMar2012-rev.pdf

Tsolaki et. al. (2009). Electrochemical disinfection of simulated ballast water using Artemia salina as
indicator. Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 156, Issue 2, 15 January 2010, 305–312.

Tsolaki, Diamadopoulos. (2009). Technologies for ballast water treatment: a review. Society of chemical
industry, 19-32.

Vijayaraghavan et. al. (2008). Electrolytic treatment of latex wastewater. Desal 219, 214-221.

Wait, I. W. (2005). Fouling and quartz surfaces in portable water ultraviolet disinfection reactors. Ph.D.
Indiana : Purdue University, 174.

Williams, R. a. (1988). Cargo vessel ballast water as a vector for the transport of non-indigenous marine
species. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci.26, 409 - 420.

91
Wright, D. A. (2010). Shipboard trials of an ozone-based ballast water treatment system. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 60, 1571–1583.

Wu, Q. (2012, 04 05). Principal engineer DNV. (A. Cappelen, Interviewer)

92