A review of developments in ballast water management

Author(s): Rajoo Balaji, Omar Yaakob and Kho King Koh

Source: Environmental Reviews , Vol. 22, No. 3 (2014), pp. 298-310
Published by: Canadian Science Publishing
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/envirevi.22.3.298

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Canadian Science Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Environmental Reviews

This content downloaded from

182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
298

REVIEW
A review of developments in ballast water management
Rajoo Balaji, Omar Yaakob, and Kho King Koh

Abstract: Transportation and translocation of non-native species by ships through ballast water is one of the current issues the
shipping industry is trying to address. The Ballast Water Convention is nearing full ratification after which treatment of ballast
water will become mandatory for most of the trading merchant vessel categories. Ballast water management systems employing
various technologies are commercially available but at high costs. Economics apart, the efficiency of these technologies and
realistic ways to ensure compliance with stricter requirements of some Administrations are issues that need to be focussed upon.
With the report of the Environmental Protection Agency as an assessment reference, this paper reviews the treatment technol-
ogies. Juxtaposing reports of Lloyd’s Register on the status, a concise overview of the technologies has been projected. A
sustainable ballast water management based on data and assessments is proposed. The management must be extended to both
shore and on-board platforms for practices, treatment, sampling, testing, and recycling. An exemplar system harvesting ship-
board waste heat is projected as a route for thermal treatment in combination with technologies showing potential for
optimized ballast water management.

Key words: ballast water treatment, The EPA Report, combination treatment, waste heat, sustainable ballast water management.

Résumé : Le transport et la translocation d’espèces non indigènes par les eaux de lestage des navires constituent un problème
courant dont l’industrie maritime doit se préoccuper. La Convention sur les eaux de lestage, sur le point de recevoir une plaine
ratification, deviendra obligatoire pour la plupart des catégories de navires marchands. Les systèmes d’aménagement des eaux
de lestage utilisant diverses technologies sont disponibles commercialement, mais à des coûts élevés. Mise à part l’aspect
économique, l’efficacité de ces technologies et les moyens réalistes d’assurer la conformité avec les règlements les plus rigoureux
de certaines administrations constituent des problèmes sur lesquels on doit concentrer les efforts. Avec le rapport de l’Agence
de protection de l’environnement comme référence pour l’évaluation, les auteurs ont revu les technologies de traitement. En
juxtaposant les rapports du registre de la Lloyd sur l’état de la situation, ils ont projeté un survol concis des technologies. On
propose un aménagement durable des eaux de lestage basé sur des données et des évaluations. L’aménagement doit s’étendre à
la fois aux côtes et aux plates formes à bord des bateaux pour les pratiques, le traitement, l’échantillonnage, les analyses et le
recyclage. On projette un système de récolte à bord des navires avec récupération de la chaleur perdue, comme piste pour le
traitement thermique en combinaison avec des technologies montrant un potentiel pour un aménagement optimal des eaux de
lestage. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : traitement des eaux de lestage, le rapport de l’APE, combinaison de traitements, chaleur perdue, aménagement
durable des eaux de lestage.

1. Introduction man diseases (Strayer 2010). Reports on environmental impacts

Global trade and related economic activities are fundamental
causes for the shift of invasive species (Perrings et al. 2002; Jones
and Kasamba 2008). Establishment of waterways, aquaculture,
and shipping cause the invasion of non-native species. In the last
four decades, cargo carried by ship has increased by a factor of
three (Asariotis et al. 2010). With nearly 80%–90% of the world
trade being dependant on shipping, ships are potential vectors in
the transporting of species. Transfer of alien species occurs by way
of hull fouling, sea chests (Coutts and Dodgshun 2007), anchors,
etc., but numbers are greatest with ballast water because of large,
undisturbed volumes. Transportation of bacteria and viruses by
ballast water, sediments, and tank biofilms are on record (Minchin
2007). Research surveys point out that 84% of global ecosystems
are affected by approximately 54% of the invasive species (Molnar
et al. 2008). The harmful effects of these shifts include predation,
disturbance, and spread of diseases affecting the community and
population ecology. The harm caused by transported species in-
cludes effects on the food web, water quality, and spread of hu-
estimate the economic costs due to invasive species to the United
States alone to be around US$137 billion (Pimental 2003).
The International Convention for the Control and Management
of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments of 2004 is an industry ini-
tiative by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to ad-
dress the issue of invasive species transported by ships. This is
referred to as the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention
(hereafter, Convention). Currently, 38 countries, totalling 30.38%
of global tonnage, have agreed; however, the requirement for full
ratification is 30 countries and 35% of global tonnage (IMO 2014).
Further to this formality, ships have to comply with stipulated
ballast water discharge standards. The IMO’s standards are univer-
sally applicable, but in the United States there have been efforts to
establish stricter rules. For example, the standards stipulated by
the state of California call for zero detectable organisms by
1 January 2020 (Dobroski et al. 2009). Following protests, legislative
actions to standardize requirements were initiated. Subsequently,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restricted the impo-
sition of individual rules by various states. The present standards

Received 15 November 2013. Accepted 12 March 2014.

R. Balaji. Malaysian Maritime Academy, Window Delivery 2051, 78300, Masjid Tanah, Melaka, Malaysia.
O. Yaakob and K.K. Koh. Marine Technology Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
Corresponding author: Rajoo Balaji (e-mail: rajoobalaji@alam.edu.my).

Environ. Rev. 22: 298–310 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/er-2013-0073 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/er on 13 March 2014.

This content downloaded from

182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Balaji et al.
Table 1. Organism size classes and performance standards.
Organism size class USCG Phase 1
Organisms ≥50 ␮m in min. dimension <10 cells/m3
Organisms 10–50 ␮m in min. dimension <10 cells/mL
Bacteria No limit
Viruses No limit
Escherichia coli <250 cfu / 100 mL
Intestinal enterococci <100 cfu / 100 mL
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae <1 cfu / 100 mL
Note: USCG, United States Coast Guard; IMO, International Maritime Organization; cfu, colony forming unit.
of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) are equivalent to that of
the IMO, but the expected standards are stricter as shown in
Table 1.
All ballast water management systems (BWMS) meet the IMO
D2 standards, but compliance to the US standards cannot be pre-
sumed. While complying with USCG Phase 1 standards, type ap-
proval for ballast water treatment (BWT) systems has to be
obtained from the USCG as it does not automatically accept a
system that has the type approval from other foreign Administra-
tions. So far, none of the existing BWT systems have satisfactorily
met the USCG standards. Because of paucity of time and urgency
of implementing the law, the USCG has introduced an interim
measure known as the Alternate Management System (AMS). Un-
der this, selected BWT systems have been recognized for on-board
use while they still await approval to the USCG standards. The
USCG Phase 2 standards have been deferred because of scientific
evidence showing that such standards are unachievable with cur-
rent technologies; however, the higher standards have not been
ruled out. Developments on the US front are bound to impact the
industry.
This paper has attempted to review the BWT technologies with
the perspective of stricter standards. The broad objectives of the
review were to identify technologies showing promise and highlight
some optimal solutions for ballast water management (BWM). While
considering the potential treatment methods and improvement
choices given by the EPA Report (2011), a model solution for BWT
utilizing shipboard resources is also proposed.
2. Options for ballast water management
Earlier approaches suggested for BWM were ballast retention,
ballast water exchange (BWE), shore-based BWT, and shipboard
BWT (National Research Council 1996), but other measures for
control and support can be included under a broad scope. Figure 1
highlights the major elements of BWM on-board and ashore. Con-
trol measures of BWT, BWE, ballast retention and isolation, and
innovative designs are presently oriented towards shipboard ap-
plications. Support measures such as sampling and testing, sur-
veys, and risk assessment (RA) for decision support have generally
been assumed to be shore based.
2.1. Ballast water exchange
Currently BWE is the mitigation measure practiced by most
vessels. Mid-ocean exchanges in a sequence or by flow-through
method are carried out to comply with ballast water performance
standards of Regulation D1. BWE relies on the fact that densities of
mid-ocean species are less compared with the coastal population
densities. So, less organisms will be shifted when a vessel pumps
out the ballast water loaded in port and takes the waters from
mid-ocean or further away from port (i.e., exchange the waters).
When the ship discharges the water in the load port, these
organisms will not survive the coastal ambience. Thus, the
BWE practice tries to reduce the chance of species introduction
or propagule pressure (a measure of non-native species introduc-
tion associated with factors such as quality, number, and fre-
quency).
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
299
USCG Phase 2 IMO D2 standards
0.01 cells/m3 <10 cells/m3
0.01 cells/mL <10 cells/mL
10/mL —
100/mL —
— <250 cfu / 100 mL
— <100 cfu / 100 mL
— <1 cfu / 100 mL or <1 cfu/gram wet
weight zoological samples
The primary drawback of BWE is the establishment of shoreline
distance and depth restrictions for exchange practices. A move
suggested to overcome this problem was to designate BWE zones
(David and Gollasch 2008). Establishment of such zones depend
on many factors such as vessel traffic, volumes, and legal issues.
Second, all ships cannot perform BWE at any route or at any given
period during the day or night. Sea and weather conditions also
affect the practice. Even in fair weather conditions, an effective
BWE requires time. Third, exchanges do not always result in re-
ductions. In some cases, exchanges have resulted in an increase of
species (McCollin et al. 2007a). Evaluating the fitness in regional
seas, McCollin et al. (2008) inferred that exchange could not be an
effective BWM practice. Also, the organism removal efficiency
was found to vary with the age and design of ships (Zhang and
Dickman 1999). Another study assessing exchange efficiency on
US defence vessels suggests further treatment to meet standards
(Burkholder et al. 2007). Lastly, ship safety as a result of varying
hull stresses is an issue. Above all, tools to find out if exchanges
have taken place need development, though research on methods
such as fluorescent tracers (Murphy et al. 2006, 2008; Murphy et al.
2013) are on record.
2.1.1. Ballast water exchange as an option
The softer measure of BWE and flushing can be effective in
certain management regimes. Bailey et al. (2011), in an assessment
of the Great Lakes Management Program, observed a reduction in
species invasions with BWE practices. Stricter monitoring has
improved compliance, but such management measures cannot
assure protection from all species. In a numerical analysis of dis-
charge dilution during movement of the vessel (Mestres et al.
2010), it was shown that careful choice of space and time of dis-
charge can reduce the impact of pollutants. Studies on minimiz-
ing hull girder stresses during the process (Chen et al. 2010a,
2010b) can improve BWE practices. But such methods require hy-
drological and meteorological characteristics of the region. Sev-
eral ways of improving BWE such as flushing without pumps and
aerator-eductors are already recognized as alternative approaches
(GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast partnerships Programme and GESAMP
IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group
of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection 2011). Despite its shortcomings, BWE is compara-
tively a cheaper and simpler option from the ship owner’s view.
In an earlier study analyzing the transport mode shift from
marine to road owing to ballast water regulations, the survey
result showed BWE as the most favoured method over other
options such as filtration + UV and heat (Yang and Perakis 2004).
However, following the full ratification of the Convention, BWE has
to give way to treatment methods to comply with ballast water per-
formance standards of Regulation D2.
2.2. Ballast water treatment
BWT technologies can be broadly grouped as physical and
chemical methods, while some may be classified as mechanical.
The methods employed are largely based on known water treat-
ment practices, but purpose-specific BWT systems are emerging.
Published by NRC Research Press
300
Fig. 1. Major elements of ballast water management (BWM) ashore and on-board.
2.2.1. Review of available systems
Table 2 highlights a few parameters of current BWT systems.
The data are based on the status reports of Lloyd’s Register, the
EPA Report (2011), and the IMO list of manufacturers’ status as of
April 2012. The data on manufacturers approved from May 2012 to
May 2013 were not enough to be combined. The list was expanded
from Lloyd’s Register status report of 2010, highlighting the addi-
tions and deletions in the next status report of 2011. The data were
compared with projections of Albert et al. (2010). Though there
were instances of products being delisted or manufacturers being
changed, they were retained as found in the status reports of
Lloyd’s Register.
Most of the available systems are a combination of one or more
methods (Lloyd’s Register Report 2010, 2011, 2012). Treatment pro-
tocols of most systems are employed during the uptake of ballast
water (57%), followed by treatment during discharging (34%), and
during sea passage (10%), whether singly or in combination (Balaji
and Yaakob 2011). The systems vary in capital and operational
costs depending on the methods and flow rates.
Referring to Table 2, the costs of BWT systems appear to prevail
in the higher range. The USCG had estimated US$400 000 –
1 500 000 for an installed system, but industry experts estimate
twice to thrice of the quoted cost (Croot 2012). The Marine Envi-
ronmental Protection Committee (MEPC 2011) preview on treat-
ment systems estimates the purchase costs of BWMS between
US$640 000 – 947 000. The costs projected in the reports of Lloyd’s
Register may not be truly representative as received data appear
inadequate. Further, for similar technologies on offer, the costs
quoted vary considerably (Balaji and Yaakob 2011). In subsequent
status reports, the operational costs have not shown much varia-
tion from US$30 for a treatment rate of 1000 m3/h. From the
footprint and sizing averages, it can be assumed that any system
would require extra shipboard space.
Data on weight of systems were not comprehensive enough for
a comparison. In general, systems employing physical methods
were heavier than those employing chemical methods. The data
on weight from manufacturers’ brochures vary by a wide range.
For example, a filtration + UV system weighs 2300 – 13 000 kg with
one manufacturer, whereas another similar system varies from
950 to 11 800 kg for similar treatment capacities.
Power requirements vary with the method used, but systems in
reckoning average 65 kW for a flow rate of 1000 m3/h. Power
demand for UV technologies are the highest in comparison. For
generating the germicidal range of 200–280 nm, lamps at 1000–
3000 V would be required. A large crude carrier with a ballast
capacity of >30 000 t would consume 2000–3800 kWh of energy
for treatment.
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
Table 2. Statistics of select parameters of current ballast water treat-
ment (BWT) systems.
Average min. capital cost, US$ (200 m3/h) 298 444
Average max. capital cost, US$ (1000 m3/h) 877 500
Average min. foot print, m2 6.9
Average max. foot print, m2 15.4
Average max. height, m 2.5
Average treatable capacity, m3/h 6875
Average power required, kW (1000 m3/h) 64.9
Average production capacity per year 187
Total production capacity projected per year 11 011
No. of BWT units installed 235
The average annual production capacity of listed BWT systems
is about 186 units only. There are over 230 units already installed.
This includes some of the shore installations. If the annual total
capacity projection of over 11 000 units could be realized, the
expected demand can be met in the coming years. These figures
are near to the preview of MEPC (2011) at 10 000 units per year. The
preview estimates the global fleet at 68 190 vessels. King et al.
(2012) estimate the number of vessels with ballast capacity >5000 m3
are highest (43.8%) followed by vessels with 1500–5000 m3 (31.7%).
Vessels with <1500 m3 (24.5%) are the least, though all these might
not fit in the category to be equipped with BWMS. Of the 40 manu-
facturers clearly identifying the range of treatment capacities in the
reports of Lloyd’s Register, 19 have capacity to treat >10 000 m3/h,
eight with ≥5000 m3/h, nine with ≥3000 m3/h, and four with
≤3000 m3/h. The BWMS designs seem well oriented to cater to the
mid- and high-ballast capacity vessels.
2.2.2. The Environmental Protection Agency assessments
Under these assessments, combination technologies were tested
for five standards. The IMO D2 and Phase 1 standards were the first
two basic levels and the next three were progressively at 10×, 100×,
and 1000× stringencies. Four scores were assigned relating to the
levels of stringency. The scores pointedly identified the technolo-
gies that could possibly perform to Phase 2 standards. Apart from
deliberations on sampling and testing processes, the report in-
cluded recommendations on improvement and measures towards
BWM.
One of the reliability criteria for assessments was the number of
systems already installed. Though it is not probable for all listed
technologies to be operational on-board, it was a preferable input
while other criteria were conditional. The EPA Report (2011) is
significant because of the stricter assessment criteria and the
identification of technologies for review. Though 51 systems were
Published by NRC Research Press
Balaji et al. 301

Table 3. Organism test results of ballast water treatment (BWT) systems.

Intestinal Toxicogenic
Treatment Organisms Organisms Escherichia coli enterococci Vibrio cholerae
combination ≥50 ␮m (/m3) 10–50 ␮m (/mL) (cfu / 100 mL) (cfu / 100 mL) (cfu / 100 mL) Remarks Reference
Filtration + UV + TiO2 Ave. 3.3; max. 4.3 Ave. 0.9; max. 2.2 Ave. <1 <1 Ave./max. <1 Land based (Manufacturer's information)
Alfa Laval PureBallast
2.2 0.7 0 <1 0 Shipboard
Filtration + UV 2.4–2.9 <10 <0.1 cfu/mL <1 cfu/mL na Land based (Monzingo et al. 2011);
Hyde Guardian
0 0.002–1.180 nd nd 0 Shipboard
Filtration + electro- 0.2–9.0 0–6.8 0–1 <1 nd–<1 Land based (Monzingo et al. 2011);
chlorination Siemens SiCURE
1.2 0 0 0.33 0 Shipboard
Deoxygenation + <4 na <160–<10 <45–<40 na (Manufacturer's information)
cavitation NEI-Mitsubishi VOS
Filtration + ClO2 0 0 0 0 0 Shipboard (Manufacturer's information)
Ecochlor
Note: nd, not detectable; na, not available.

listed for assessment, only nine could meet the reliability criteria.
Among these, five combination technologies scored ABCDD.
The score A assures compliance to the IMO D2 standards,
B shows a likelihood of meeting the Environmental Technology
Protocol standards (Phase 1), C marks the potential for meeting
the Environmental Technology Protocol standards with some
changes (10×), D points out the BWMS is unlikely to meet the stan-
dards (100× and 1000× or Phase 2 standards) even with modifications.
Though the comprehensive test reports of all systems were not pro-
jected, five combinations (filtration + UV, filtration + UV + TiO2, fil-
tration + electrochlorination, deoxygenation + cavitation, filtration +
chlorine dioxide) were identified as promising to meet the stricter
standards (Phase 2, 1000×). The independent test results of these BWT
systems at type approval stages are tabulated in Table 3. All the
sampling and test protocols (including parameters such as salinity,
particulate organic carbon (PCC), total suspended solids (TSS), and
temperature) conformed to the requirements of the IMO guidelines
(G8). For organism size class of ≥50 ␮m and 10–50 ␮m, the minimum
numbers and diversity were as per the IMO guidelines (G8), but the
details of species and phyla/division were not available. Where or-
ganisms could not be detected in the discharged samples, it was
reported as not detectable or zero.
Comparatively, higher counts have resulted for organism size
classes in the range of 10–50 ␮m for the filtration + UV combination.
Lower efficiencies for phytoplankton at 60% (Cangelosi et al. 2001)
and >70% (Wright et al. 2007a), zooplankton at 60% (Cangelosi et al.
2001), and Artemia sp. at 13.7% have been recorded earlier for the
same combination treatment (Tsolaki and Diamadopoulos 2010).
In the case of the filtration + electrochlorination system, one
of the land test results of Vibrio cholerae marginally exceeded
the limits (107.4 counts), but the testing authority identified
why the data point could be dismissed — and accepted compli-
ance (Monzingo et al. 2011).
Comparing the results for indicator microbes, high values
are seen for the deoxygenation + cavitation combination for
Escherichia coli. For the same system, Tamburri et al. (2002) had
recorded 99% efficiency for zooplankton.
Only the test results of the system employing chlorine dioxide
showed no living organisms in all the treated cycles (three test
cycles). Further it was observed that no living phytoplankton or-
ganism <10 ␮m was observed in the treated waters. At laboratory
levels, >97% mortality have been recorded for Alexandrium catenella
and Gydonimium catenatum cysts (Tsolaki and Diamadopoulos
2010). Other laboratory and shipboard tests have shown high elim-
ination efficiencies of zooplankton, phytoplankton, Vibrio, and
E. coli colonies with small dosages of ClO2.
Referring to Tables 1 and 3, it is evident that considered BWT
combinations meet the D2 standards. Two inferences may be
noted. First, a certain level of difficulty does exist in eliminating
phytoplankton in the range 10–50 ␮m, and second, chemical us-
age enhances elimination efficiencies.
2.2.3. Review of select technologies
The numbers of combination methods were estimated from
Lloyd’s Register Report (2010, 2011). Treatment solutions using a
single method (10) were limited. Most manufacturers have ad-
opted a combination of two methods (25) or three methods (21) for
treatment. There were systems using four technologies (6) and a
maximum of five technologies (2). There was no information avail-
able for six of the manufacturers.
In the projections of Lloyd’s Register Report (2010, 2011, 2012)
and by Albert et al. (2010), the systems filtration (45), electrolysis
(26), electrochlorination (23), and UV (13) were identified with
greatest preference, with ozonation (8), cavitation (6), and
deoxygenation (5) following. Advanced oxidation (6) by some
means and chlorination (4) were in lesser preference. Residual
control methods (7) were limited to systems employing active
chemicals. Any or all other treatment or support methods had not
more than two mentions.
The update of ClassNK (2014) identifies 32 systems with final
approval from the IMO. Filtration (47), UV (20), electrolysis (13),
and electrochlorination (6) still appear to be the preferred meth-
ods. Ozonation (6), cavitation (5), and deoxygenation (3) follow.
Electrodialysis (2) and electrocatalysis (1) are also used in combi-
nation. Only one system uses chlorine dioxide, and chlorination is
found in two systems. There are nine instances of chemicals being
used for treatment and residual control. Support methods (4) in-
cluded plasma, ultrasound, flocculation, and hydrocyclones.
It is noteworthy that the preferred methods were those em-
ployed in the promising combinations identified by the EPA as-
sessments. Referring to the promising combinations accepted
under the AMS as of 31 October 2013 (Marine Propulsion 2014),
filtration + UV combination is found in nine systems and electrol-
ysis + electrochlorination combination in nine systems. Use of
TiO2 and deoxygenation are found in two systems. There are three
systems employing chlorination. There was no system employing
cavitation. Ozonation (2), plasma, and cyclonic separation meth-
ods are also found, which do not feature in the promising combi-
nations identified by the EPA.

Published by NRC Research Press

This content downloaded from

182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
302
Filtration, cavitation, and UV are physical disinfection meth-
ods, whereas employment of chlorine dioxide and electrochlo-
rination may be classified as chemical disinfection methods.
Whenever treatment is affected by the water flow, filtration is
employed either for pre-treatment or for part treatment. Apart
from screen and disc filters, membrane (Castaing et al. 2010) and
crumb filters (Tang et al. 2006) are being considered. Screen filters
work on the sieve principle. Disc filters have discs with surface
serrations stacked together. The angular serrations create tiny
gaps or restrictions that trap the particles. Screen filters (50 ␮m)
or disc types are the most preferred. The highest efficiency re-
corded for 50 ␮m screen filters is 89% for zooplankton and 9.3% for
phytoplankton (Cangelosi et al. 2007; Veldhuis et al. 2006). Organ-
ism sizes (microbacteria and oversized plankton) and accumula-
tions will affect efficiencies. Back flushing, depending on the
outlet pressure, is the general method employed to clear accumu-
lations that result in power losses. Otherwise, flow rate is the only
limiting factor for the filtration method. With flow and size limita-
tions, removal efficiency for bacteria is less, especially for disc-type
filters. Filtration, with maximum instances among the current sys-
tems, might become a certain pre-treatment or an important sup-
port method.
Improvements such as tangential cleaning using unfiltered
sea water to reduce back flushing losses are being tried. Re-
search on other filter media is also being pursued. Testing of
crumb filters made from rubber tyre particles with the addition
of poly-aluminium chloride (Tang et al. 2009) and by confining
and relaxing the filters (Karanikola et al. 2011) are on record. Also,
a multi-layered sand bed based on computer modelling has
yielded encouraging results for both zooplankton and phyto-
plankton removal (Ilangovan et al. 2009).
Electrolysis and electrochlorination have the next highest num-
ber of instances. Their application could be to natural or artificial
sea water, resulting in chlorination. A low voltage direct current is
passed while water flows thorough an anode-cathode cell. The
resulting electrolysis produces sodium hypochlorite and gases,
which are vented out. With other methods, hypochlorite or
hypochlorous acids are produced that disinfect the water (Tsolaki
et al. 2010). Two modes, one direct flow-through and another where
disinfectant is obtained from an external electrochemical device are
employed in generic electrochemical processes. Disinfection by di-
rect mode is comparatively more effective (Nadeeshani et al. 2011). In
electrocatalysis, catalytic metals coated on the electrodes strengthen
the electrochemical rates. These processes may be considered to be
closely similar.
In comparison, chlorine dioxide has lesser reactions with or-
ganic materials and results in lesser by-products, which will be
mostly chlorates/chlorites, carbonyl compounds, and carboxyl
acids (Gregg et al. 2009), but the reagents employed (sodium
chlorate, hydrogen peroxide, and sulphuric acid, etc.,) can be
hazardous (Lloyd’s Register Report 2011). Its toxicity to microalgae
is a major concern, but its biodegradability is assumed to be good.
Its long-term effects on environment, tank corrosion, and sedi-
ments are yet to be followed.
UV irradiation has the next highest usage in combination with
other methods. The photochemical effect of UV considerably dam-
ages the cell organisms (Gregg et al. 2009). The mortality efficien-
cies for bacteria have been high, and lower efficiencies have been
recorded for Scrippsiella sp. cysts at 52% and Artemia sp. cysts
zooplankton at 26% (Gregg et al. 2009). Supportive advanced
oxidation has been adopted from waste water management
technologies. The processes using TiO2 aid electrolysis and speed
up generation of free radicals (Cl⫺ − ⫺ ⫺
2 , ClBr ,Br2 , and CO3 ). The UV+
TiO2 combination has the potential to inhibit regrowth of plank-
ton, but disinfection by-products have been observed (Zhang et al.
2014). UV in combination with ozonation has been demonstrated
to overcome the problem of bacteria regrowth (Wu et al. 2011). A
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
recent study shows a filtration cum medium pressure UV system
is efficient and with no undesirable by-products (Yeon 2012).
In the cavitation method, high frequency shock waves cause the
destruction of cells (Gogate and Kabadi 2009). Cavitation is seen as
an environmentally and economically sound mechanism. Apart
from shock waves, fluid turbulence and shears are also attributed
to cell disruption (Sawant et al. 2008). When used singly, it is slow
to work in flow-through systems (Mason et al. 2003), and thus this
method needs to be used in combination (Gregg et al. 2009). In the
ClassNK (2014) update on BWT systems, cavitation employment is
found in combination with deoxygenation, ozonation, and elec-
trochlorination.
Deoxygenation (0.2–1 mg/L of O2) has been demonstrated by
physical means such as sparging (bubbling a gas through liquid)
nitrogen. Other means include venturi oxygen stripping, vacuum
chamber, and chemicals such as glucose and sulphides (McCollin
et al. 2007b). Asphyxiation is achieved over a period by introduc-
ing inert gas produced for the purpose or exhaust gases from
combustion. The inert gas used to change the pH (5.5–6) is classi-
fied as a denaturalizing agent (Kacan 2012). Deoxygenating the
ballast water is supposedly favourable in reducing tank corrosion
apart from the mortalities caused by hypoxia (Tamburri et al. 2002).
Assessing yeast-based bioreactive deoxygenation, de Lafontaine and
Despatie (2014) observed that the method may be preferably used
on ships on long voyages or on those operating in cold environ-
ments. Deoxygenation requires time and hence not favoured for
ships on short voyages.
2.2.4. Other technologies and research in ballast water treatment
In the BWT range, oxidizing and nonoxidizing chemicals are
also employed. Oxidizing chemicals (mostly chlorine), which form
the bigger group of active substances, destruct organic structures,
while nonoxidizing chemicals affect the reproductive functions
of organisms — similar to pesticides. Among the nonoxidizing
chemicals, artificially made vitamin K3 from menadione (Wright
et al. 2007b) has a long record as a biocide with no detrimental
effects on health and environment (Wright et al. 2009). Menadi-
one used for synthetic manufacture of vitamin K has proven po-
tent at low dosage (1 kg for 1000 m3 at 1 mg/L concentration). This
is advantageous for storage (Wright et al. 2007c), but neutralization
might be needed before discharge. At laboratory levels, naphthoqui-
none derivatives have shown good efficiencies in controlling bacte-
rial growth, suggesting suitability for treating fresh and salt waters
(Chelossi and Faimali 2006). Peracetic acid (de Lafontaine et al. 2008)
and hydrogen peroxide (Kuzirian et al. 2001) are other chemicals in
employment that are relatively less harmful but requiring high dos-
age and storage. Peroxide can be irritable and believed to cause cor-
rosion. Two commercial products, Peraclean and SeaKleen , have
® ®
shown good efficiencies on bacteria elimination in varying salinity
conditions (La Carbona et al. 2010). A major advantage of some non-
oxidizing chemicals would be the degradation into nontoxic stages
over a few days.
Disinfection by chlorinating directly or by other sources works
becuase of the resulting hypochlorous acids (ionic and proton-
ated) and chloramines (Tsolaki and Diamadopoulos 2010). As its
effectiveness varies with pH, salinity, temperature, and organism
type (Lloyd’s Register Report 2011), dosages need to be high. Chlo-
rine dosage at varying levels has yielded 90%–100% deactivation
of Gymnodimium catenatum cysts (Bolch and Hallegraeff 1993), and
with sodium hypochlorite based generation, bacteria removal of
85.2%–100%, phytoplankton at 75%–100%, and zooplankton at
96%–99% (Gregg et al. 2009) have been recorded. In a few systems,
residual chlorine control is achieved by use of sulphatic chemicals
for neutralization. One system employing sodium hypochlorite
assures improved chemical neutralization by the turbulent water
flow induced by the pump (Yukihiko et al. 2011). However, end-
control and elimination of by-products are major concerns.
Published by NRC Research Press
Balaji et al.
Comparing varying bacteria concentrations in port waters,
mortalities have been demonstrated using ferrate (Jessen et al.
2006). Ozone is another oxidant chemical used in some systems
backed by proven disinfection efficiency in water systems (Perrings
et al. 2006a, 2006b; Herwig et al. 2006). Few results have shown
toxic by-products beyond regulatory limits, emphasizing a need
for combination and neutralization (Wright et al. 2010). Because
ozone is a greenhouse gas, and is unstable at atmospheric condi-
tions, it needs to be produced on site which involves a high cost.
Among the oxidizing chemicals, ozone has the highest reduction
potential followed by peracetic acid, chlorine dioxide, hypochlo-
rous acid, and chlorine (Kacan 2012). Tank corrosion, on-board
health, by-products, residual limits, safety, and costs are all com-
mon issues with chemicals.
Ultrasound and plasma are physical methods. Ultrasound is
similar to cavitation where micro-bubbles are generated and their
resulting collapse cause shear forces strong enough to cause mor-
tality of organisms. It has been proven to be effective, causing cell
membrane rupture of organism class >100 ␮ (Holm et al. 2008).
Sonication is expected to focus more on zooplankton because of
the longer time requirement for mortality (Brizzolara et al. 2006).
In another laboratory study using ultrasound, hydrogen peroxide,
and ozone, significant mortality rates have been realized in com-
bination (Gavand et al. 2007). In some instances, free radical gen-
eration is achieved by ultrasound. In a related effort, short impulse,
high pressure application over a period has shown good inactiva-
tion of bacteria (Abe et al. 2011). Noise effects, tank coating peel-
offs and corrosion, and heat generated in transducers converting
electrical into mechanical energies are some problem areas with
the ultrasound method (Sassi et al. 2005).
Heat treatment is another method that has been getting atten-
tion. Heat treatment using engine waste heat, external heating
such as steam, and microwave heating have been suggested
(Gregg et al. 2009). In microwave heating, the electric field excites
the water molecules causing vibrations. The resulting intermolec-
ular friction produces heat. Because of its short-term intense heat-
ing, it has better efficiency than conventional heating in unclear
waters (Boldor et al. 2008).
As support systems, hydrocyclones are being used effectively
for large particles (Lloyd’s Register Report 2011), but efficiencies
with smaller organisms are low (Waite et al. 2003) and result in
inlet flow losses. Hydrocyclones separate heavier density parti-
cles through flow-induced centrifugal forces. Coagulants such as
poly aluminium chloride and magnetic separation using triiron
tetroxide are employed in coagulation/flocculation systems. Storage
and disposal of the resultant accumulations are issues to be dealt
with. As a supportive measure for effective tank flushing manage-
ment, employment of brine in tanks has shown >99.9% mortality
(Bradie et al. 2010). Few other methods have been tested, but commer-
cial applications are not found. Slow-working nonoxidizing chemical
gluteraldehyde (Sano et al. 2003), with corrosion and health safety
problems, and a physical method of air bubble floatation (Sansalone
et al. 2001) may be noted.
2.3. Ballast water management: other measures
2.3.1. Reception facilities
Guidelines G1 and G5 encourage this measure. The EPA Report
(2011) had considered five reports out of a listing of 25 with dis-
cussions on reception facilities and shore-based treatment. The
reports favoured shore-based treatment and reception facilities
over shipboard treatment for effectiveness and economics. With
shore facilities, the possibility of recycling quality water, which
could be a result of treatment or otherwise, exists. Ships can
exchange treated waters for untreated waters (Tsolaki and
Diamadopoulos 2010) or even waters (stored after BWE) with
lesser organism densities. If fresh water generation and usage is
adopted with desalination (Suban et al. 2010), fresh water supplies
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
303
could be extended to public and also new jobs can be created
(Zipperle et al. 2011). Another significant advantage is that tank
sediment accumulation can be disposed effectively (Veldhuis et al.
2010). BWM ashore would do better because of economics of scale
and would relieve the shipboard obligations of training the crew
and handling different types of BWT systems (Donner 2010). A
shipboard UV + filtration system is estimated to cost between
US$230 000 – 1 200 000 (Lloyd’s Register Report 2011). In compar-
ison, a feasibility study (WDNR Study 2007) for the port of Milwau-
kee had estimated a capital cost of US$560 000 for a shore-based
BWT facility employing the same combination. Besides, the pres-
sure of on-board treatment to meet discharge standards stricter
than the convention standards can be effectively eased with treat-
ment ashore. Ships will need to be retrofitted or designed to re-
ceive and pump ballast water ashore (EPA Report 2011; WDNR
Study 2007). Adequate storage, establishment of treatment units,
economics, investment in facilities, and cost recoveries from
ships and industry are other issues to be addressed.
2.3.2. Species database and risk assessments
On the species related front, one of the earlier initiatives was by
the International Council for Exploration of the Sea. The objec-
tives of the data reports include documentation and dissemina-
tion of information (Gollasch 2007). Apart from understanding
the pathways such as hulls and ballast water, other pathways
including biofilms and sediments can be discovered with focussed
studies (Drake et al. 2007). For example, ballast water from short
sea shipping along the US west coast was considered as a vector for
the spread of species (Simkanin et al. 2009), and data collection
was carried out to understand other sources.
Another example would be the early hazard assessment study
by Hayes and Silwa (2003). Based on select criteria such as rela-
tionship of species with the vector, harm and alien nature of
species were ascertained. Campbell et al. (2007), while analyzing
survey methods for evaluating invasive species, highlight that an
understanding of species presence in respective waters by coun-
tries is needed to manage the issue. Surveys may be extended to
vessel movements, patterns, and be more focussed on ports sim-
ilar to the Alaskan study by McGee et al. (2006).
RA is another area of development that is expected to contrib-
ute to better BWM. Based on an early model by Carlton (1986), a
simple quantitative assessment approach to identify control fail-
ure was proposed by Hayes (1998). The approach aimed to help
identify low to high risk routes based on species grouping. RAs
have been employed for establishing health standards for inten-
tional introductions by import, identifying potential locations
and vectors for introductions, and for determining potentially
harmful species (Hewitt and Campbell 2007).
For effective decision support, data for initial assessments will
require evaluation of the processes and quantities of species in-
troductions (David et al. 2007). Species-specific assessments re-
quire large volumes of data while identifying specific risks of
selected species. With environmental similarity approaches, the
physical conditions of given locations are compared. Species-
specific assessments (Hayes and Hewitt 2001) based on environ-
mental similarity by GloBallast (Clarke et al. 2003) and other
assessments are on record. A realistic situation for environmental
similarity is the loading and discharging of waters from the same
location. Under such conditions, treatment can be exempted as
permitted by the regulations. But there are issues on the extent
and scope of “same location”. David et al. (2013) urge for defining
locations and limiting it to a “practicable unit” such as harbour,
mooring, or anchorage.
The objective with either of the approaches is to assess the
invasive ability of the species. In evaluating both assessment
methods assuming set principles, Barry et al. (2008) concluded
that species-specific assessments are well suited for voyages re-
quiring assessment of limited set of harmful species. It is also
Published by NRC Research Press
304
argued that ballast water must be a small component of the ge-
netic movement between the regions. On the other hand, envi-
ronmental similarity assessments are suited for journeys between
noncontiguous bioregions. Hayes (1998) identified three types of
ballast water hazards and observed that the major difficulty
was the nonavailability of data for applying quantitative RAs.
Research on overcoming problems of quantitative approaches us-
ing complex modelling techniques are also being developed (Pam
et al. 2013).
Risk-based decision support systems and databases have been ad-
vocated for differentiated treatment levels (Endresen et al. 2004).
Dunstan and Bax (2008) developed a model based on species popula-
tion dynamics, oceanographic patterns, and vessel movements to
assess the effectiveness of management rules and regulation — the
use of which could be extended to evaluate treatment methods. The
possibility of using a method of indexing risk for water quality deg-
radation has been suggested for ballast waters (Grifoll et al. 2010).
The Institute of Marine Research and Ecosystem Studies has
demonstrated a semiquantitative RA study that can help in decid-
ing treatment for waters from a specific region. The method iden-
tified specific species, assessed the chance for introduction, and
the resulting impact for decision making (Tamis et al. 2008).
Olenin et al. (2007) demonstrated an assessment approach based
on species abundance and distribution that can be used for mea-
suring changes in biopollution.
Region-specific approaches to BWM with decision support mod-
els are on record (Jing et al. 2012). One of the early models by Drake
and Lodge (2004) identified the global invasion hot-spots based on
frequency and number of ship visits. By predicting the rate of
increasing or decreasing rate of invasion, BWM may be strat-
egized for port- or ship-focussed elimination of species.
Several other assessment studies such as the Australian deci-
sion based system, Norwegian, German, and Great Lakes RAs,
apart from the IMO’s GloBallast (Champ 2002), are cognizable
initiatives aiming to improve the understanding of risks, but the
diversity of factors point to a greater requirement of data. For
example, while studying the effects of long periods of darkness
(ambience in a ballast tank during a long voyage), species survival
was found to be affected by nutrients, seasonality, as well as the
freshness of sea water (Carney et al. 2011), which obviate the need
for support information. And for any assessment approach, the
remedial measure has to be clear lest it becomes an academic
exercise (Barry et al. 2008). There is abundant on-going research
on RAs, but data for tangible management practices will take
time.
2.3.3. Innovations in ballast water management systems
On the design front, innovative solutions such as fresh water
ballasts, optimized designs for ballast ship structure, natural
BWE, and ballast-free ships (Parsons and Kotinis 2006; He and
Ikeda 2013) have been suggested. Examples include new hull de-
signs, a longitudinal ballast trunk, seldom-discharge designs,
ship buoyancy control (flushing and controlling tank waters with-
out pumping, etc.), as well as solid ballast options (GEF-UNDP-
IMO GloBallast partnerships Programme and GESAMP IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection 2011).
Another ship-specific solution would be the use of solid ballast
for container ships. The slabs would conform to the width and
length of regular containers constructed to universal size. On
average, a container ship will have empty containers equivalent to
15%–20% of the tonnage. Even when the vessel has to load full
ballast, on average, the maximum would be 30% of the dead
weight tonnage. Solid steel slabs can be used as ballast. The slabs
can be used many times over and the time for loading and unload-
ing will be as much as that for a container. This being an eco-
friendly solution, future ships can be designed to adapt such
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
ballast slab units. Design changes, storage, and operational time
increases in ports will be some of the contentious issues.
Harmonization of BWM (David and Gollasch 2008) and improve-
ments on current ballasting practices have also been suggested,
which might have universal relevance for BWT and BWE regimes.
For example, less organism uptake may be achieved by avoiding
ballasting at night as zooplankton swarms generally come to sur-
face during darkness (Rigby 2004). Other rational practices in-
clude the exchange of ballast water with fresher and cleaner
waters and the regular flushing of tanks; retention when possible
or minimal release; avoidance of ballast uptake in dredging areas,
shallow waters, sewage flow periods, and identified areas known
for harmful organisms and algal bloom occurrence. On the BWM
front, Administrations may follow reward regimes to encourage
realization of environmental benefits. Fernandez (2008) modelled
the use of liability, subsidy incentive, and tax incentive policies.
The rationale would be the mitigation of the invasions and max-
imization of profit, which will appeal to ship owners.
3. Discussion
From the functional point of view, BWM issues related to com-
pliance evaluation are of primary concern compared with those
related to compliance enforcement. Compliance evaluation refers
to meeting Convention requirements and IMO standards, while
compliance enforcement refers to punitive measures on noncom-
pliance (Gollasch 2012).
Obviously, the two major control measures directly affecting
the compliance evaluation are BWE and BWT. It is apparent that
current BWE practices will not suffice, and treatment is required
to meet even the present standards. The major issue relates to
efficiency. Type-approved BWT systems assure efficiencies to IMO
standards, but at least one instance is on record where a type-
approved system has been withdrawn from the market after
doubts on capabilities to meet the standards (Ballast Water
Treatment Technology 2013). Instances of a type-approved system
being noncompliant to discharge standards have also been re-
ported.
With stricter standards in view, efficiencies will be related to
the “zero organism” standard. The D2 standards were developed
based on planktonic and bacterial ranges. Elimination of bacteria
requires a greater intensity of treatment because of their size,
regeneration potential, and resilience to adverse environment
(Fileman and Vance 2010). Since these microscopic exotic organ-
isms can reproduce and increase over time, persist indefinitely,
and spread over regions (Lee et al. 2010), biological safety would be
to have no organisms in the discharges. This is the rationale for
zero organism or “no living organism”. The EPA Report (2011) had
considered no living organism under two interpretations. The
first simply assumes complete sterilization, while the second as-
sumes test results below prescribed detection limits. Though results
below prescribed limits have been demonstrated, complete ster-
ilization cannot be presumed for nondetectable reports because
of analytical and sampling errors. Understandably, the EPA tests
infer that the candidate technologies in combination do not as-
sure sterilization or complete removal of organisms. Intense treat-
ment with chemicals might guarantee total termination of
organisms, but safety will be a major concern.
Physical and mechanical methods have a high level of effi-
ciency, but for the removal of microorganisms, additional chem-
ical methods are preferred. The short- and long-term effects of
many system characteristics, especially those using active sub-
stances, are the next concern. The short-term effects relate
primarily to health risks. The health risks of BWT systems, partic-
ularly those employing the handling and usage of chemicals,
are realistic apprehensions. Ballasting, deballasting, calibration,
treatment, storage, sampling, testing, and tank inspections are
potential activities where the exposure routes will be either
Published by NRC Research Press
Balaji et al.
through dermal mode or inhalation (Banerji et al. 2012). Further,
Banerji (2012) observed that only 10% of all known disinfection
by-products are considered during testing of the systems, and
toxicological studies for health effect assessments are available
only for a limited number of disinfection by-products. Investiga-
tions on by-products from BWT systems are lacking (Banerji et al.
2012).
For example, aldehydes in low concentrations can cause human
toxicity (Kacan 2012). The active agents generated from oxidation
chemicals (mostly chlorine) react with organic matter and result
in undesirable by-products (Gregg et al. 2009; Banerji et al. 2012).
Chlorine decay can be through oxidation, addition and substitution
reactions, and light decomposition, depending on the initial dosage
and physiochemical properties of the sea water (Nadeeshani et al.
2011). With such variables affecting the dosage, subsequent controls
are bound to be affected.
The long-term effects will be related to environment. Some
elimination methods result in the mutation of cell structure of
organisms and some in the release of chemicals. Denaturalizing
agents (pH shifters and aldehydes) cause irreversible changes to
protein structures, resulting in the loss of biological function of
organisms. The termination mechanism of chlorine dioxide is
understood to be by inactivation of proteins in the living cells of
organisms (Kacan 2012). The detrimental effects on marine ecosys-
tems, and tank corrosion caused by these, are yet to be realized for
analyses and substantial assessments. The complexity of such as-
sessments can be understood from the generic exposure assess-
ment guidance model developed by the Federal Environmental
Agency, Germany (Zipperle et al. 2011). For calculating the envi-
ronmental concentration of representative substance resulting
from ballast discharges, the model requires data on harbour ge-
ometry, processes causing renewal of water masses, average bal-
last water emissions in the port, as well as data on the active
substances. The data on active substances would include the decay
pattern and exchange with atmospheres and aquatic sediments.
Other chemicals in use with similar harmful issues range from
halogenated to other substances such as ozone, peracetic acid,
silver ions, and copper ions.
The test results of ClO2 (Table 3) where the organisms were not
detectable, indicate the intensity of such chemicals. Use of such
active substances on a large scale (many BWT systems) might
result in another environmental problem. The experience of anti-
fouling coating on ships’ hulls and subsequent ban on tributyl tin
and self-polishing copolymers may be recalled. While three out of
five BWT combinations identified by the EPA assessments use
chemicals, as of 31 October 2013 there are 15 systems accepted
under AMS by the USCG employing active substances (Marine
Propulsion 2014). Two systems employ ozonation, which is argu-
ably a method where harmful by-products are bound to result. In
a recent update on treatment systems, 43 out of 60 systems em-
ploy active substances (ClassNK 2014).
The other issues concern the support measures of sampling and
testing in regard to compliance enforcement. Testing is de-
manded at two levels, namely at the approval stage of the BWT
system and at the operational stage when discharges need moni-
toring. Earlier studies by Veldhuis et al. (2006) and guidelines of
the Environmental Technology Protocol show adequacy of proto-
cols for approvals. The generic nature of guidelines (G8) had taken
time for development of standard methods, but issues of prepara-
tion of test waters and sampling protocols for varying land-based
test locations remain (Fuhr 2012). Water quality, representative
test species, biological methods, flow rates and volumes, and op-
erational time frames are some of the elements for designing the
test protocol (Hunt et al. 2005), including temperature effects
(Drillet et al. 2013).
Regarding testing, the organism size standards under the pur-
view of the IMO have drawn sceptical discussions. Though there is
agreement that such standards would reduce the risks, Dobbs and
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
305
Rogerson (2005) suggest that threshold limits have to be estab-
lished empirically. Fileman and Vance (2010) suggested that D2
stipulations on bacteria may be revised comparing the back-
ground populations in discharge areas and also including input
sources (e.g., sewerage). They argue further that stricter standards
(exceeding D2 requirements) for viruses would result in dis-
charges with fewer viruses resulting in bacterial blooms. The
Phase 2 standards would include assessments using total virus
standards, but methods are not clear. The EPA Report (2011), refer-
ring to the three subset of taxa (for <10 ␮m size), had observed
that assessments have relied on these as “representative of treat-
ment of all bacteria”.
At the level of on-board testing, there are methods such as
colourimetric tests, amperometry, and flow cytometry that are
available, but standard monitoring tools and protocols are yet to
evolve. On-board sampling will also pose challenges. Light-induced
effects such as vertical migration of plankton inside the tanks can
cause absence, as well as concentration of species while sampling
(Anwar 2010). Universally applicable standards for on-board sam-
pling and testing within reasonable time are yet to be established.
Fuhr et al. (2010) emphasized the need for adoption of convenient,
quick compliance control tests for personnel without biological
training (shipboard personnel) for sampling large volumes of
water.
Another issue with sampling and testing is the zero organism
standard. The report by Lee et al. (2010) highlights limitations of
this standard. In the first place, because of difficulties in represen-
tative sampling of large volumes for absence of organisms, poor
sampling protocols will result in the release of organisms. The
EPA Report (2011) highlights this. As organism concentration de-
creases, the probability of obtaining a sample with no organism
increases. The nondetectable results could be due to this reason.
With stringent standards, a poor sampling protocol might indi-
cate compliance, but organisms will be released with the dis-
charged waters (Lee et al. 2010). The EPA Report (2011) observed
that zero organism measurements of microorganisms by differen-
tiating their live and dead conditions based on physiological cer-
tainties are difficult. Apprehensions of representative sampling
errors and analytical errors remain (Miller et al. 2011). Sampling
protocols will face further challenges because of complex factors
such as organism variety, diversity, and behaviour, and ship de-
sign and sampling points (David and Perkovič 2004). Furthermore,
available data were insufficient to quantify uncertainties in anal-
ysis of discharged water (Miller et al. 2011) and nonavailability of
failures in type approval tests (EPA Report 2011). Considering the
above, minimizing and diluting the numbers would be prudent
rather than attempting to achieve zero organism levels, prefera-
bly without employing chemicals.
3.1. Sustainable ballast water management
The comprehensive BWM system emphasized by Bax et al.
(2003) will be possible only if the major concerns are addressed
under a sustainable framework with better designs and practices
both ashore and on-board. BWM could be ideally resolved to zero
organism levels if ships are designed with no ballast requirement
or if the ballast can be totally isolated. But such innovative solu-
tions are practicable only for a limited number of ships. As a
design solution, BWT is seen as the major recourse for achieving
zero to near zero levels. But even a high level of termination of
organisms will not assure control. Doblin and Dobbs (2006) high-
lighted that micro-sized (<50 ␮m) dinoflagellate cysts present in
ballast water and tank biofilms will be discharged even if BWT
systems comply with the IMO size standards. In an investigative
study of heterotrophic bacterial survival after BWT, recoloniza-
tion of bacteria due to support from dead cells has been observed
(Hess-Erga et al. 2010). Dobbs and Rogerson (2005) suppose that
it is unlikely that all organisms, especially bacteria, will be
completely terminated or even detected, and they suggest that
Published by NRC Research Press
306
Fig. 2. Ballast water management (BWM) system integrated with ship and shore.
treatment approaches should try the reduction of abundance
rather than complete eradication. This should be the primary
BWM approach, an approach that will be conducive to ship-
based BWM practices.
Biological information such as invasion success and dose–
response relationships (Miller et al. 2011) are needed for optimizing
the BWM practices. Development of RA models and baseline sur-
veys must be extended to all geographic locations having poten-
tial for invasion. Regional exemptions (e.g., Baltic Sea) must be
probed into. Frost and Sullivan projected the growth of the BWM
market to over US$30 billion (Zagdan 2010), while there are re-
ports projecting US$50–74 billion for the period from 2011 to 2016
(King et al. 2010, 2012). These are projected based on modular
treatment practice on-board ships. With a radical shift of treat-
ment practice ashore, if these economics are directed to shore-
based facilities, sustainability levels would be better. A system
that addresses all factors affecting species’ survival such as salin-
ity, pH, temperatures and densities of organisms; ballasting pat-
terns, rates, and volumes; presence of sediments with other
control reasons like intensity, and time of treatment will be easier
to establish ashore. For example, it has been suggested that an
existing shore-based facility to treat oily ballast water in Port Val-
dez can be equipped to treat segregated ballast for nonindigenous
species (Anwar 2010; Tsolaki and Diamadopoulos 2010).
Further, the issues of chemicals can be effectively controlled
under shore-based BWM. Waters resulting from BWE based on
RAs and treatment on-board may be discharged ashore for reuse.
Further treatment of these waters ashore before reusing can pos-
sibly achieve zero organism levels. Even if complete sterilization
is not achieved, since the waters are isolated, the approach will
have a higher probability of success in reducing the propagule
pressure. An efficient BWM envisaging highest risk reduction per
unit cost (Hayes 1998) is achievable by this shore-based approach.
Figure 2 shows a schematic layout of a BWMS integrated with ship
and shore.
As discussed, control and support measures are still evolving
and integrating BWM on-board and ashore is bound to take time.
For a paradigm shift of combining BWM approaches, it is imper-
ative shipboard treatment solutions are also optimized, cost effec-
tive, and safe. One of the strongest reasons cited for the delay in
ratification of the Convention is the lobbying by ship owners with
respective flags to avoid the increased costs of fitting BWT systems
(MER 2012). Since, any BWT system may not be suitable for any
kind of vessel and all trading patterns (Kazumi 2007), ship-type
specific systems have to be identified and optimized. A combina-
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
tion system using shipboard waste heat where possible is an ex-
emplar solution for optimizing BWM.
3.2. Heat treatment as part of a combination ballast water
treatment system
Heat treatment can be considered to be used in combination
with any of the promising technologies identified in the EPA
Report (2011). Gregg et al. (2009) suggested heat treatment could
be used in combination with cavitation, UV, and ultrasonic meth-
ods. With active substances, increased temperatures enhance ef-
ficiency and also quicken the decay of by-products (Drillet et al.
2013). In terms of efficacies, heat treatment has shown mortalities
at varying ranges and heating time phase (Mountfort et al. 1999).
At a temperature range of 55–80 °C, appreciable mortalities have
been demonstrated with on-board tests (Quilez-Badia et al. 2008).
Another study comparing the toxicity of three methods concludes
that termination of resting egg stages is achievable at higher tem-
peratures (heat), whereas UV and deoxygenation methods are in-
effective (Raikow et al. 2007). Thermal method in combination
with ultrasound has been shown to lessen the time required for
mortality (Brizzolara et al. 2006). Design- and pilot-scale studies of
a steam-based high-temperature BWT system (Mesbahi et al. 2007)
are on record, and presently, one system based on engine jacket
water waste heat is commercially available. In another system, sea
water, after removing heat from the central cooling system or
steam condensers, is electrolyzed. Heat treatment has been stud-
ied as a candidate technology (Bolch and Hallegraeff 1993; Rigby
and Hallegraeff 1994; Sobol et al. 1995; Rigby et al 1999; Thornton
2000) but issues remain.
First, sufficient heat might not be available on all types of ships.
Balaji and Yaakob (2012a) analyzed heat availability on an opera-
tional tanker considering not only the heat rejections in jacket
water coolers but also heat harvested from low temperature sys-
tem and exhaust gases. Though considerable heat is available, the
time required to heat large volumes will be insufficient consider-
ing port stays and voyages. The second issue is the low mortality
efficiency of some bacteria — especially in sediments. Some re-
search has shown that low temperature heating is effective for
residual organisms in sediments (Stocks et al. 2004). On the same
note, there are concerns of growth simulation of some pathogenic
bacteria at mild temperatures though there are supportive argu-
ments that pathogenic bacteria are nutrient dependant and
growth accelerations are improbable in ballast water (Gregg et al.
2009).
Published by NRC Research Press
Balaji et al.
Fig. 3. Ballast water treatment (BWT) system based on shipboard waste heat in combination with a parallel unit.
A system using filtration and heat harvesting complemented by
any of the methods identified by the EPA Report (2011) might
overcome these problems. Balaji and Yaakob (2012b) proposed
such a system. Figure 3 shows the simple layout of a BWT system
based on shipboard waste heat in combination with a parallel unit
(e.g., filtration + UV) — based on a promising technology. Thermal
treatment at mild levels will also overcome the problem of heated
water discharges. Operational costs of heat treatment are bound
to be low, and capital cost of the treatment using engine heat is
lowest in comparison with other heat sources such as microwave
(Gregg et al. 2009). The initial cost of any system in combination
with heat might be as high as the systems on offer, but the waste
heat recovery will definitely result in good amortization benefits.
All approved BWMS may be assumed to satisfy the IMO’s crite-
ria of being safe for the crew, environmentally acceptable, practi-
cal, cost effective, and biologically efficient. In the same light, a
filtration + heat + UV combination system would meet the criteria
convincingly. With no chemicals in use, the proposed BWMS will
be safe for the crew and will have environmental acceptability.
Usage of noncorrosive materials such as glass reinforced plastic
and polyvinyl chloride would reduce weight. The combination
will be thus more practicable even for existing ships while retro-
fitting. Biological efficiency will be improved with the strong com-
bination. Lastly, the system will be cost effective over the life time
of the vessel. Among the identified combinations, filtration + UV
has the lowest life-cycle cost of US$0.27–0.31 for treating 1 metric ton of
ballast water, considering all merchant vessel types (King et al. 2012).
With the waste heat recovery in a filtration + heat + UV system, the
UV requirement also may be lessened resulting in reduced costs.
With strengthened efficiency, the BWMS can be used for treatment
protocols in port and during ballast passage. Depending upon the
length of voyage and volume, the methods may be used in combina-
tion or separately.
4. Conclusions
From the industry view point, regulatory compliance would be
the compelling reason to opt for BWT rather than the environ-
mental rationale. Earlier concerns for ratification were mainly
due to lack of technology and guidelines (Anwar 2010). Though
progress is seen in these fronts, industry’s conviction has not got
stronger. At the 65th MEPC Meeting (May 2013), it was proposed to
allow time (until next renewal survey) for the fitting of BWT sys-
tems on existing vessels. Further, the IMO guidelines on sampling,
analysis, and testing for approval and operation are yet to be
reconciled amongst member states. The complexity of BWM from
aligning regulations to ship and regional characteristics has been
highlighted by many (Abu-Khader et al. 2011). In the last sitting of
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
307
the IMO Assembly (November–December 2013), the move to apply
new implementation dates has been received favourably. Also,
concerns on performance of BWT systems to remove sufficient
organisms (Doblin and Dobbs 2006) remain, which are evident
from recent reports on noncompliance. Such moves and inci-
dences of approved systems being withdrawn and failing compli-
ance after type approval point to a state of flux. It is clear that
there are existing issues to be negotiated with all elements of
BWM.
Strategically, with the greater objective of stopping species in-
vasion in focus, BWM must be extended to shore platforms. The
economics and efforts of bringing the major control measure
ashore must be viewed as a growth potential for a support indus-
try. RAs and data must help develop tangible BWM practices ex-
tending to both shipboard and shore approaches. Recycling
treated water and usage of shipboard waste heat are sustainable
solutions. While methods similar to heat-based combination
treatment will bode well for reducing the cost impact on the
industry, recycling will mitigate the environmental impact owing
to indiscriminate organism terminations.
Acknowledgements
This Review is part of research funded by the Ministry of Sci-
ence, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia.
References
Abe, A., Ohtani, K., and Takayama, K. 2011. Overpressure generation and repeti-
tion of collapsing microbubbles induced by shock wave reflection in a nar-
row gap. Shock Waves, 21: 331–339. doi:10.1007/s00193-011-0315-1.
Abu-Khader, M.M., Badran, O., and Attarakih, M. 2011. Ballast water treatment
technologies, hydrocyclonic a viable option. Clean Technologies and Envi-
ronmental Policy, 13: 403–413. doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0325-1.
Albert, R., Everett, R., Lishman, J., and Smith, D. 2010. Availability and efficacy of
ballast water treatment technology: background and issue paper. Information
report to Scientific Advisory Board, EPA. Available from http://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/9E6C799DF254393A8525762C004E60FF/$File/
OW_Paper_Ballast_water_technology_issues_and_background_June_2010.pdf.
Anwar, N. 2010. Ballast Water Management. Witherby Seamanship Interna-
tional Ltd. Edinburgh. pp. 107, 108.
Asariotis, R., Benamara, H., Hoffman, J., Misovicova, M., Núñez, E., Premti, A.,
Sitorus, B. and Vioh, B. 2010. Review of Maritime Transport, United Nations,
Geneva.
Bailey, S.A., Deneau, M.G., Jean, L., Wiley, C.J., Leung, B., and MacIsaac, H.J. 2011.
Evaluating efficacy of an environmental policy to prevent biological inva-
sions. Environmental Science and Technology, 45: 2554–2561. doi:10.1021/
es102655j. PMID:21388172.
Balaji, R., and Yaakob, O. 2011. Emerging ballast water treatment technologies: a
review. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 11(1): 126–138.
Balaji, R., and Yaakob, O. 2012a. An analysis of shipboard waste heat availability
for ballast water treatment. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology,
11(2): 15–29.
Published by NRC Research Press
308
Balaji, R., and Yaakob, O. 2012b. Envisaging a ballast water treatment system
from shipboard waste heat. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Maritime Technology, 25–28 June 2012, Harbin, China.
Ballast Water Treatment Technology. 2013. Vol. 5, Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.
pp. 22.
Banerji, S. 2012. Human exposure scenario. In Emerging Risks from Ballast Wa-
ter Treatment. Edited by B. Werschkun, T. Höfer, and M. Greiner. The Interreg
IVB North Sea Region Programme. pp. 64, 71.
Banerji, S., Werschkun, B., and Höfer, T. 2012. Assessing the risk of ballast water
treatment to human health. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 62:
513–522. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.11.002. PMID:22107915.
Barry, S.C., Hayes, K.R., Hewitt, C.L., Behrens, H.L., Dragsund, E., and Bakke, S.M.
2008. Ballast water risk assessment, principles, processes, and methods. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 65: 121–131. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn004.
Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E., and Geeves, W. 2003. Marine
invasive species, a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy, 27: 313–323.
doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00041-1.
Bolch, C.J., and Hallegraeff., G.M. 1993. Chemical and physical treatment options
to kill toxic dinoflagellate cysts in ships’ ballast water. Journal of Marine
Environmental Engineering, 1: 23–29.
Boldor, D., Balasubramanian, S., Purohit, S., and Rusch, K.A. 2008. Design and
implementation of a continuous microwave system for ballast water treat-
ment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(11): 4121–4127. doi:10.1021/
es7024752. PMID:18589975.
Bradie, J.N., Bailey, S.A., van der Velde, G., and MacIsaac, H.J. 2010. Brine-induced
mortalities of non-indigenous invertebrates in residual ballast water. Marine
Environmental Research, 70: 395–401. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.08.003.
PMID:20843548.
Brizzolara, R.A., Holm, E.R., and Stamper, D.M. 2006. Disinfection of water by
ultrasound: application to ballast water treatment. Survivability, Structures
and Materials Department, Technical Report NSWCCD-61-TR-2006/16.
Burkholder, J.M., Hallegraeff, G.M., Melia, G., Cohen, A., Bowers, H.A.,
Oldach, D.W., Parrow, M.W., Sullivan, M.J., Zimba, P.V., Allen, E.H.,
Kinder, C.A., and Mallin, M.A. 2007. Phytoplankton and bacterial assem-
blages in ballast water of the U.S. military ships as a function of port of origin,
voyage time, and ocean exchange practices. Harmful Algae, 6: 486–518.
Campbell, M.L., Gould, B., and Hewitt, C.L. 2007. Survey evaluations to assess
marine bioinvasions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 350–378.
Cangelosi, A.A., Knight, I.T., Balcer, M., Wright, D., Dawson, R., Blatchley, C. et al.
2001. The Great Lakes Ballast Water Demonstration Project: Biological Effec-
tiveness Testing Program (including MV Regal princess trials). In Proceedings
of the IMO 1st International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium, Lon-
don. pp. 88–94.
Cangelosi, A.A., Mays, N.L., Balcer, M.D., Reavie, E.D., Reid, D.M., Sturtevant, R.,
and Gao, X. 2007. The response of zooplankton and phytoplankton from the
North American Great Lakes to filtration. Harmful Algae, 6: 547–566. doi:10.
1016/j.hal.2006.11.005.
Carlton, J.T. 1986. Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine
organisms. The biology of ballast water. Oceanography and Marine Biology
Annual Review, 23: 313–371.
Carney, K.J., Delany, J.E., Sawant, S., and Mesbahi, E. 2011. The effects of pro-
longed darkness on temperate and tropical marine phytoplankton and their
implications for ballast water risk management. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
62: 1233–1244. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.022. PMID:21489565.
Castaing, J.B., Massé, A., Pontié, M., Séchect, V., Haure, J., and Jaouen, P. 2010.
Investigating, ultrafiltration UF and microfiltration MF for sea water pre-
treatment dedicated to total removal of undesirable micro-algae. Desalina-
tion, 253: 71–77. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2009.11.031.
Champ, M.A. 2002. Marine Testing Board for certification of ballast water treat-
ment technologies. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: 1327–1335. doi:10.1016/
S0025-326X(02)00316-8. PMID:12523535.
Chelossi, E., and Faimali, M. 2006. Comparative assessment of antimicrobial
efficacy of new potential biocides for treatment of cooling and ballast waters.
Science of the Total Environment, 356: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.03.
018. PMID:16126254.
Chen, J., Lin, Y., Huo, J.Z., Zhang, M.X., and Ji, Z.S. 2010a. Optimization of ship’s
sub division arrangement for offshore sequential ballast water exchange
using a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Ocean Engineering, 37:
978–988. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.03.012.
Chen, J., Lin, Y., Huo, J.Z., Zhang, M.X., and Ji, Z.S. 2010b. Optimal ballast water
exchange sequence design using symmetrical multitank strategy. Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, 15: 280–293. doi:10.1007/s00773-010-0087-9.
Clarke, C., Hayes, T., Hilliard, R., Kayvanrad, N., Parhizi, A., Taymourtash, H.,
Yavari, V., and Raaymakers, S. 2003. Ballast Water Risk Assessment. Port of
Kharg Island, Islamic Republic of Iran. GloBallast Monograph Series 8.
ClassNK. 2014. Available from www.classnk.or.jp/hp/pdf/activities/statutory/
ballastwater/approval_ballast_e.pdf [accessed 17 January 2014].
Coutts, A.D.M., and Dodgshun, T.J. 2007. The natures and extent of organisms in
vessel sea chests: a protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 54: 875–886. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.03.011. PMID:
17498747.
Croot, G. 2012. Ballast water type approval process and obstacles associated with
installation of non-coast guard type approved ballast water management
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
systems. Report to St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 9 January
2012.
David, M., and Gollasch, S. 2008. EU shipping in the dawn of managing the
ballast water issue. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1966–1972. doi:10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2008.09.027. PMID:18977498.
David, M., and Perkovič, M. 2004. Ballast water sampling as a critical component
of biological invasions risk management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49: 313–
318. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.02.022. PMID:15341825.
David, M., Gollasch, S., Cabrini, M., Perkovič, M., Bošnjak, D., and Virgilio, D.
2007. Results from the first ballast water sampling study in the Mediterra-
nean sea — the Port of Koper study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 53–65.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.08.041. PMID:17049948.
David, M., Gollasch, S., and Pavilha, M. 2013. Global ballast water management
and the “same location” concept: a clear term or a clear issue? Ecological
Applications, 23(2): 331–338. PMID:23634585.
de Lafontaine, Y., and Despatie, S.-P. 2014. Performance of a biological
deoxygenation process for ships’ ballast water treatment under very cold
water conditions. Science of The Total Environment, 472: 1036–1043. doi:10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.116. PMID:24345863.
de Lafontaine, Y., Despatie, S.-P., and Wiley, C. 2008. Effectiveness and potential
toxicological impact of the PERACLEAN ocean ballast water treatment
®
technology. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 71: 355–369. doi:10.
1016/j.ecoenv.2007.10.033. PMID:18078993.
Dobbs, F.C., and Rogerson, A. 2005. Ridding ships’ ballast water of microor-
ganisms. Environmental Science and Technology, 39: 259A–264A. PMID:
16047763.
Doblin, M.A., and Dobbs, F.C. 2006. Setting a size exclusion limit to remove toxic
dinoflagellate cysts from ships’ ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52:
259–263. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.12.014. PMID:16480748.
Dobroski, N., Scianni, C., Takata, L., and Falkner, M. 2009. October 2009 update,
ballast water treatment technologies for use in California waters. Prepared
by the California State Lands Commission. Marine Invasive Species Program 3.
Donner, P. 2010. Ballast water management ashore brings more benefits, emerg-
ing ballast water management systems. In Proceedings of the IMO-WMU
Research and Development Forum, January 2010. pp. 97–105.
Drake, J.M., and Lodge, D.M. 2004. Global hot-spots of biological invasions, eval-
uating options for ballast water management. In Proceedings of Royal Society
London, 271: 571–580.
Drake, L.A., Doblin, M.A., and Dobbs, F.C. 2007. Potential microbial invasions via
ships’ ballast water, sediment and biofilm. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55:
333–341. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.11.007. PMID:17215010.
Drillet, G., Schmoker, C., Trottet, A., Mahjoub, M.S., Duchemin, M., and
Andersen, M. 2013. Effects of temperature on type approval testing of ballast
water treatment systems. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Man-
agement, 9: 192–195. doi:10.1002/ieam.1394. PMID:23307338.
Dunstan, P.K., and Bax, N.J. 2008. Management of an invasive marine species,
defining and testing the effectiveness of ballast-water management options
using management strategy evaluation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65:
841–850. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn069.
Endresen, O., Behrens, H.L., Brynestad, S., Andersen, A.V., and Skjong, R. 2004.
Challenges in global ballast water management. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
48: 615–623. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.016. PMID:15041419.
EPA Report, 2011. Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a Report by EPA
Science Advisory Board. US Environmental Protection Agency-Scientific Ad-
visory Board Report.
Fernandez, L. 2008. NAFTA and member country strategies for maritime trade
and marine invasive species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 89: 308–321.
Fileman, T., and Vance, T. 2010. Ballast water: a question of balance. Marine
Scientist, 33: 22–25.
Fuhr, F. 2012. Land-based testing of ballast water treatment systems and its
possible function in risk assessment. In Emerging Risks from Ballast Water
Treatment. Edited by B. Werschkun, T. Höfer, and M. Greiner. The Interreg IVB
North Sea Region Programme. pp. 47, 48.
Fuhr, F., Finke, J., Stehouwer, P.P., Osterhuis, S., and Veldhuis, M. 2010. Factors
influencing organism counts in ballast water samples and their implications.
Emerging ballast water management systems. In Proceedings of the IMO-
WMU Research and Development Forum, January 2010. pp. 253–259.
Gavand, M.R., McClintock, J.B., Amsler, C.D., Peters, R.W., and Angus, R.A. 2007.
Effects of sonication and advanced chemical oxidants on the unicellular
green alga Dunaliella tertiolecta and cysts, and larvae and adults of the brine
shrimp Artemia salina: a prospective treatment to eradicate invasive organ-
isms from ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 1777–1788. doi:10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2007.07.012. PMID:17881012.
GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast partnerships Programme and GESAMP IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. 2011. Establishing
equivalency in the performance testing and compliance monitoring of
emerging alternative ballast water management systems (EABWMS). A Tech-
nical Review. GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast partnerships, London, UK and
GESAMP, GloBallast Monographs No. 20, GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 82.
Gogate, P.R., and Kabadi, A.M. 2009. A review of applications of cavitations in
biochemical engineering and biotechnology. Biochemical Engineering Jour-
nal, 44: 60–72. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2008.10.006.
Gollasch, S. 2007. International collaboration on marine bioinvasions — the ICES
Published by NRC Research Press
Balaji et al.
response. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 353–359. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2006.11.009. PMID:17207819.
Gollasch, S. 2012. BWO technical outline and requirements for organism detec-
tion systems for establishing compliance enforcement. Summary of final
report. Interreg IVB Project. pp. 5.
Gregg, M., Rigby, G., and Hallegraeff, G.M. 2009. Review of two decades of
progress in the development of management options for reducing or eradi-
cating phytoplankton, zooplankton and bacteria in ship’s ballast water.
Technical Report. Aquatic Invasions, 43: 521–565. doi: 10.3391/ai.2009.4.3.14.
Grifoll, M., Jordà, G., Borja, A., and Espino, M. 2010. A new risk assessment method
for water quality degradation in harbor domains, using hydrodynamic mod-
els. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 69–78. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.08.
030. PMID:19828156.
Hayes, K.R. 1998. Ecological risk assessment for ballast water introductions: a
suggested approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 201–212. doi:10.1006/
jmsc.1997.0342.
Hayes, K.R., and Hewitt, C.L. 2001. Ballast-Water Risk Assessment. Vol.2. CRIMP
Technical Report 21. CSIRO Division of Marine Research, Hobart, Australia.
Hayes, K.R., and Silwa, C. 2003. Identifying potential marine pests — a deductive
approach applied to Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46: 91–98. doi:10.
1016/S0025-326X(02)00321-1. PMID:12535974.
He, N.V., and Ikeda, Y. 2013. Optimization of bow shape for a non ballast water
ship. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 12: 251–160. doi:10.1007/
s11804-013-1196-8.
Herwig, R.P., Cordell, J.R., Perrins, J.C., Dinnel, P.A., Gensemer, R.W.,
Stubblefield, W.A., Ruiz, G.M., Kopp, J.A., House, M.L., and Cooper, W.J. 2006.
Ozone treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry,
biology and toxicity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 37–55. doi:10.3354/
meps324037.
Hess-Erga, Ole-K., Blomvågnes-Bakke, B., and Vadstein, O. 2010. Recolonization
of heterotrophic bacteria after UV irradiation or ozonation of sea water: a
simulation of ballast water treatment. Water Research, 44: 5439–5449. doi:
10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.059. PMID:20655082.
Hewitt, C.L., and Campbell, M.L. 2007. Mechanisms for prevention of marine
bioinvasions for better biosecurity. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 395–401.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.005. PMID:17379259.
Holm, E.R., Stamper, D.M., Brizzolara, R.A., Barnes, L., Deamer, N., and
Burkholder, J.M. 2008. Sonication of bacteria, phytoplankton and zooplank-
ton, application to treatment of ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
566: 1201–1208.
Hunt, C.D., Tanis, D.C., Stevens, T.G., Frederick, R.M., and Everett, R.A. 2005.
Verifying ballast water treatment performance. Environmental Science and
Technology, August 2005. pp. 321–328.
Ilangovan, D., Naik, K.A., Khandeparker, L., Sawant, S.S., and Anil, A.C. 2009.
Ballast water treatment through filtration using modified graded sand filters.
Marine Engineers Review (I), May 2009. pp. 15–18.
IMO 2014. Available from www.imo.org Status of Conventions [accessed 13 Feb-
ruary 2014].
Jessen, A., Randall, A., and Reinhart, D. 2006. Effectiveness and kinetics of fer-
rate as a disinfectant for ballast water. In Proceedings of 14th International
Conference on Invasive Aquatic Species.
Jing, L., Chen, B., Zhang, B., and Peng, H. 2012. A review of ballast water man-
agement practices and challenges in harsh and arctic environments. Envi-
ronmental Reviews, 20(2): 83–108. doi:10.1139/a2012-002.
Jones, G., and Kasamba, E. 2008. Social and economic impacts of alien species
introductions. Decision tools for aquaculture. Report D2.4, Project 044142.
Central Science Laboratory.
Kacan, S. 2012. Overview of ballast water treatment principles. In Emerging Risks
from Ballast Water Treatment. Edited by B. Werschkun, T. Höfer, and M.
Greiner. The Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme. pp. 35, 37, 40.
Karanikola, V., Ngo, A.T., and Valdes, J.R. 2011. Plankton filtration with com-
pressible crumb rubber packs. Chemosphere, 82: 597–602. doi:10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2010.10.098. PMID:21126750.
Kazumi, J. 2007. Ballast water treatment technologies and their application for
vessels entering the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Technical Re-
port, May, University of Miami.
King, D.M., Riggio, M., and Hagan, P.T. 2010. Preliminary overview of global
ballast water treatment markets. MERC Ballast Water Economics Discussion
Paper No. 2. Available from www.maritimeenviro.org/reports/Reports.html/.
King, D.M., Hagan, P.T., Riggio, M., and Wright, D.A. 2012. Preview of global
ballast water treatment markets. Journal of Marine Engineering and Tech-
nology, 11(1): 3–15.
Kuzirian, A.M., Terry, E.C.S., and Bechtel, D.L. 2001. Hydrogen peroxide: an
effective treatment for ballast water. Biological Bulletin, 201: 297–299. doi:
10.2307/1543376. PMID:11687434.
La Carbona, S., Vitasalo-Frösen, S., Masson, D., Sassi, J., Pineau, S.,
Lehtineimi, M., and Corroler, D. 2010. Efficacy and environmental acceptabil-
ity of two ballast water treatment chemicals and an alkylamine-based bio-
cide. Science of the Total Environment, 409: 247–255. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2010.10.006. PMID:21056457.
Lee, H., II., Reusser, D.A., Frazier, M., and Ruiz, G. 2010. Density matters: review
of approaches to setting organism-based ballast water discharge standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/031
(NTIS PB2012-110754).
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
309
Lloyd’s Register Report. 2010. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Current Sta-
tus. 3rd edition, February 2010. pp. 7–35.
Lloyd’s Register Report. 2011. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Current Sta-
tus. 4th edition, June 2011. pp. 7–12.
Lloyd’s Register Report. 2012. Ballast Water Treatment Technology Update
March 2012.
Marine Propulsion. 2014. Ballast water treatment — The tap is still not turned
on. December/January 2013/2014. pp. 64.
Mason, T.J., Joyce, E., Phull, S.S., and Lorimer, J.P. 2003. Potential uses for ultra-
sound in the decontamination of water. Ultrasonic Sonochemistry, 10: 319–
323. doi:10.1016/S1350-4177(03)00102-0.
McCollin, T., Shanks, A.M., and Dunn, J. 2007a. The efficiency of regional ballast
water exchange: changes in phytoplankton abundance and diversity. Harm-
ful Algae, 6: 531–546. doi:10.1016/j.hal.2006.04.015.
McCollin, T., Quilez-Badia, G., Josefsen, K.D., Gill, M.E., Mesbahi, E., and
Frid, C.L.J. 2007b. Shipboard testing of a deoxygenation ballast water treat-
ment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 1170–1178. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.
04.013. PMID:17574278.
McCollin, T., Shanks, A.M., and Dunn, J. 2008. Changes in zooplankton abun-
dance and diversity after ballast water exchange in regional seas. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 56: 834–844.
McGee, S., Piorkowski, R., and Ruiz, G. 2006. Analysis of recent vessel arrivals
and ballast water discharge in Alaska: toward assessing ship-mediated inva-
sion risk. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1634–1645. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.
2006.06.005. PMID:16904704.
MEPC. 2011. Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water. Preview of global bal-
last water treatment markets, MEPC 63/INF.11. 11 December 2011.
MER. 2012. Strict standards for shipboard equipment. Waste and water manage-
ment. (Marine Engineers Review). May 2012. pp. 20–26.
Mesbahi, E., Norman, R.A., Vourdachas, A., and Quilez-Badia, G. 2007. Design of
a high-temperature thermal ballast water treatment system. Proc. of the
IMechE, Part M, Journal of Engineering for Maritime Environment, 221:
31–42.
Mestres, M., Sierra, J.P., Mösso, C., and Sanćhez-Arcilla, A. 2010. Modelling the
sensitivity to various factors of ship borne pollutant discharges. Environmen-
tal Modelling and Software, 25: 333–343. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.08.006.
Miller, A.W., Frazier, M., Smith, G.E., Perry, E.S., Ruiz, G.M., and Tamburri, M.N.
2011. Enumerating sparse organisms in ships’ ballast water: why counting to
10 is not so easy. Environmental Science and Technology, 45: 3539–3546.
doi:10.1021/es102790d. PMID:21434685.
Minchin, D. 2007. Aquaculture and transport in a changing environment: over-
lap and links in the spread of alien biota. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55:
302–313. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.11.017. PMID:17223137.
Molnar, J.L., Gamboa, R.L., Revenga, C., and Spalding, M.D. 2008. Assessing the
global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 6: 485–492. doi:10.1890/070064.
Monzingo, D.G., Reynolds, K.J., and Van Slyke, R.J. 2011. Ballast water treatment
system evaluation for small vessels. Report by The Golsten Associates pre-
pared for Isle Royale National Park — M/V Ranger III Ballast Water Treatment
System. pp. 14, 17, 25.
Mountfort, D.O., Hay, C., Taylor, M., Buchanan, S., and Gibbs, W. 1999. Heat
treatment of ships’ ballast water: development and application of a model
based on laboratory studies. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering,
5: 193–206.
Murphy, K.R., Ruiz, G.M., Dansmuir, W.T.M., and Waite, T.D. 2006. Optimized
parameters for fluorescence based verification of ballast water exchange by
ships. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(7): 2357–2362. doi:10.1021/
es0519381. PMID:16646474.
Murphy, K.R., Field, M.P., Waite, T.D., and Ruiz, G.M. 2008. Trace elements in
ships’ ballast water as tracers of mid-ocean exchange. Science of the Total
Environment, 393: 11–26. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.12.011. PMID:18237765.
Murphy, K.R., Boehme, J.R., Brown, C., Noble, M., Smith, G., Sparks, D., and
Ruiz, G.M. 2013. Exploring the limits of dissolved organic matter fluorescence
for determining seawater sources and ballast water exchange on the US
Pacific coast. Journal of Marine Systems, 111: 157–166. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.
2012.10.010.
Nadeeshani Nanayakkara, K.G., Zheng, Y., Korshed Alam, A.K.M., Zou, S., and
Paul Chen, J. 2011. Electrochemical disinfection for ballast water manage-
ment: technology development and risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulle-
tin, 63(5–12): 119–123. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.003. PMID:21474153.
National Research Council NRC. 1996. Stemming the tide, controlling the intro-
ductions of non-indigenous species by ships’ ballast water. Edited by National
Research Council Committee on Ships’ Ballast Operations. National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, D.C.
Olenin, S., Minchin, D., and Daunys, D. 2007. Assessment of bio pollution in
aquatic ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 379–394. doi:10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2007.01.010. PMID:17335857.
Pam, E.D., Li, K.X., Wall, A., Yang, Z., and Wang, J. 2013. A subjective approach for
ballast water risk estimation. Ocean Engineering, 61: 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2012.12.045.
Parsons, M.G., and Kotinis, M. 2006. Seaway-sized bulk carrier model for hy-
drodynamic optimization of ballast-free ship design. Research Report, Great
Lakes Maritime Research Institute.
Published by NRC Research Press
310
Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E.B., Delfino, D., Dalmazzone, S.,
Shogren, J., Simmons, P., and Watkinson, A. 2002. Biological invasion risks
and the public good: an economic perspective. Conservation Ecology, 6: 1.
Perrings, J.C., Cordell, J.R., Ferm, N.C., Grocock, J.L., and Herwig, R.P. 2006a.
Mesocosm experiments for evaluating biological efficacy of ozone treatment
of marine ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1756–1767. doi:10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2006.07.011. PMID:17046029.
Perrings, J.C., Cooper, W.J., Hans van Leeuwen, J., and Herwig, R.P. 2006b. Ozo-
nation of sea water from different locations: formation and decay of total
residual oxidant-implications for ballast water treatment. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 52: 1023–1033. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.01.007. PMID:16540126.
Pimental, D. 2003. Economic and ecological costs associated with aquatic inva-
sive species. In Proceedings of the Aquatic Invaders of the Delaware Estuary
Symposium, Penn State University, Pennsylvania Sea Grant. pp. 3–5.
Quilez-Badia, G., McCollin, T., Josefson, K., Vourdachas, A., Gill, M.E.,
Mesbahi, E., and Frid, C.L.J. 2008. On-board short-time high temperature heat
treatment of ballast water: a field trail under operational condition. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 56: 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.09.036. PMID:
18036619.
Raikow, D.F., Reid, D.F., Blatchley, E.R., III, Jacobs, G., and Landrum, P.F. 2007.
Effects of proposed physical ballast tank treatments on aquatic invertebrate
resting eggs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 264: 717–725.
Rigby, G. 2004. Ballast water treatment technology; choosing the best options. In
Proceedings of Conference on the Control and management of ship’s ballast
water and sediments.
Rigby, G.R., and Hallegraeff., G.M. 1994. The transfer and control of harmful
marine organisms in shipping ballast water: behaviour of marine plankton
and ballast water exchange on the MV “Iron Whyalla”. Journal of Marine
Environmental Engineering, 1: 91–110.
Rigby, G.R., Hallegraeff, G.M., and Sutton, C.A. 1999. Novel ballast water heating
technique offers cost-effective treatment to reduce the risk of global trans-
port of harmful marine organisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 191: 289–
293. doi:10.3354/meps191289.
Sano, L.L., Moll, R.A., Krueger, A.M., and Landrum, P.F. 2003. Assessing the
potential efficiency of gluteraldehyde for biocide treatment of unballasted
transoceanic vessels. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 294: 545–557.
Sansalone, J., Voon, E., and Srinivasan, V. 2001. Management of invasive species
transported in ballast water by dissolved air floatation technology. In Pro-
ceedings of 2nd International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Cam-
bridge.
Sassi, J., Viitasalo, S., Rytkönen, J., and Leppäkoski, E. 2005. Experiments with
ultraviolet light, ultrasound and ozone technologies for on-board ballast
water treatment, Espoo2005, VTT Tiedotteita-Research Notes 2313.
Sawant, S.S., Anil, A.C., Krishnamurthy, V., Gaonkar, C., Kolwalkar, J.,
Khandeparker, L., Desai, D., Mahulkar, A.V., Ranade, V.V., and Pandit, A.B.
2008. Effect of hydrodynamic cavitation on zooplankton: a tool for disinfec-
tion. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 42: 320–328. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2008.
08.001.
Simkanin, C., Davidson, I., Falkner, M., Sytsma, M., and Ruiz, G. 2009. Intra-
coastal ballast water flux and the potential for secondary spread of non-
native species in the US west coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58: 366–374.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.013. PMID:19108853.
Sobol, Z., Wladyslaw, K., and Bohdan.W. 1995. System for destruction of micro-
organisms occurring in ballast waters. Paper presented at the IMO MEPC 38.
Stocks, D.T., O’Reilly, M., and McCracken, W. 2004. Treatment of residual ballast
water in the NOBOB ship using heat. In Second International Symposium on
Ballast Water Treatment IMO. Edited by J.T. Matheickal and S. Raaymakers.
London, UK. pp. 137–147.
Strayer, D.L. 2010. Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions
with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshwater Biology,
55(Sppl.1): 152–174.
Suban, V., Vidmar, P., and Perkovič, M. 2010. Ballast water replacement with
fresh water — why not? Emerging ballast water management systems. In
Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, Malmö,
Sweden. pp. 53–76.
Tamburri, M.N., Wasson, K., and Matsuda, M. 2002. Ballast water deoxygenation
can prevent aquatic introductions while reducing ship corrosion. Biological
Conservation, 103: 331–341. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00144-6.
Tamis, J.E., Kaag, N.H.B.M., and Karman, C.C. 2008. Feasibility studies in relation
to the IMO Ballast Water Convention, Report C082/09.IMARES.
Tang, Z., Butkus, M.A., and Xie, Y.F. 2006. Crumb rubber filtration: a potential
technology for ballast water treatment. Marine Environmental Research, 61:
410–423. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2005.06.003. PMID:16458350.
This content downloaded from
182.255.0.242 on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:06:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Environ. Rev. Vol. 22, 2014
Tang, Z., Butkus, M.A., and Xie, Y.F. 2009. Enhanced performance of crumb
rubber filtration for ballast water treatment. Chemosphere, 74: 1396–1399.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.11.048. PMID:19117590.
Thornton, G. 2000. Ballast water decontamination-using heat as a biocide. Paper
presented at Sea Australia Conf. Sydney. 1–3 February.
Tsolaki, E., and Diamadopoulos, E. 2010. Technologies for ballast water treat-
ment: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 85: 19–
32. doi:10.1002/jctb.2276.
Tsolaki, E., Pitta, P., and Diamadopoulos, E. 2010. Electrochemical disinfection of
simulated ballast water using Artemia salina as indicator. Chemical Engineer-
ing Journal, 156: 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2009.10.021.
Veldhuis, M.J.W., Fuhr, F., Boon, J.P., and Ten Hallers-Tjabbers, C. 2006. Treat-
ment of ballast water: how to test a system with modular concept? Environ-
mental Technology, 27(8): 909–921. doi:10.1080/09593332708618701. PMID:
16972387.
Veldhuis, M., ten Hallers, C., Brutel de la Rivière, E., Fuhr, F., Finke, J., van de
Star, I., and van Sloote, C. 2010. Ballast water treatment systems, old and new
ones: emerging ballast water management systems. In Proceedings of the
IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, January 2010. pp. 27–37.
Waite, T.D., Kazumi, J., Lane, P.V.Z., Farmer, L.L., Smith, S.G., Smith, S.L.,
Hitchcock, G., and Capo, T.R. 2003. Removal of natural populations of marine
plankton by a large-scale ballast water treatment system. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 258: 51–63. doi:10.3354/meps258051.
WDNR Study. 2007. Port of Milwaukee onshore ballast water treatment feasibil-
ity study report, Phase 2. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources On-
shore Ballast Water Treatment Study, Brown & Caldwell. pp. 98.
Wright, D.A., Dawson, R., Orano-Dawson, C.E., and Moesel, S.M. 2007a. A test of
efficiency of a ballast water treatment system aboard the vessel Coral Prin-
cess. Marine Technology, 441: 68–76.
Wright, D.A., Dawson, R., and Orano-Dawson, C.E. 2007b. Shipboard trials of
menadione as a ballast water treatment. Marine Technology, 44: 57–67.
Wright, D.A., Dawson, R., Cutler, S.J., Cutler, H.G., Orano-dawson, C.E., and
Graneli, E. 2007c. Naphthoquinones as broad spectrum biocides for treat-
ment of ships’ ballast water: toxicity to phytoplankton and bacteria. Water
Research, 41: 1294–1302. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2006.11.051. PMID:17270232.
Wright, D.A., Dawson, R., Caceres, V., Orano-Dawson, C.E., Kananen, G.E.,
Cutler, S.J., and Cutler, H.G. 2009. Shipboard testing of the efficacy of SeaKleen
as a ballast water treatment to eliminate non-indigenous species aboard a ®
working tanker in Pacific waters. Environmental Technology, 30(9): 893–910.
doi:10.1080/09593330902929889. PMID:19803328.
Wright, D.A., Gensemer, R.W., Mitchelmore, C.L., Stubblefield, W.A.,
van Genderen, E., Dawson, R., Orano-Dawson, C.E., Bearr, J.S., Mueller, R.A.,
and Cooper, W.J. 2010. Shipboard trials of an ozone-based ballast water treat-
ment system. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 1571–1583. doi:10.1016/j.mar
polbul.2010.04.010. PMID:20483433.
Wu, D., You, H., Zhang, R., Chen, C., and Du, J. 2011. Inactivation of Escherichia coli
using UV/Ag-TiO2/O3-mediated advanced oxidation: application to ballast wa-
ter disinfection. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 86:
1521–1526. doi:10.1002/jctb.2667.
Yang, Z., and Perakis, A.N. 2004. Multiattribute decision analysis of mandatory
ballast water treatment measures in the US Great lakes. Transportation Re-
search Part D, 9: 81–86. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2003.08.002.
Yeon, J.J., Yeojoon, Y., Tae, S.P., Soo-Tae, L., Kyoungsoon, S., and Joon-Wun, K.
2012. Evaluation of disinfection efficacy and chemical formation using MPUV
ballast water treatment system GloEn-Patrol™. Environmental Technology,
33(17): 1953–1961. doi:10.1080/09593330.2012.655315. PMID:23240188.
Yukihiko, O., Satoru, A., and Koji, F. 2011. JFE ballast water management system,
JFE Technical Report No.16.
Zagdan, T. 2010. Ballast water treatment market remains buoyant. Water and
Wastewater International, 251: 14–17.
Zhang, F., and Dickman, M. 1999. Mid-ocean exchange of container vessel ballast
water. 1. Seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and
dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 176: 243–251. doi:10.3354/
meps176243.
Zhang, N., Hu, K., and Shan, B. 2014. Ballast water treatment using UV/TiO2
advanced oxidation processes: an approach to invasive species prevention.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 243: 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2013.12.082.
Zipperle, A., van Gils, J., van Hattum, B., and Heise, S. 2011. Guidance for a
harmonized emission scenario document esd on ballast water discharge.
Report UBA-FB 001481/E, Federal Environmental Agency. UmweltBunde-
sAmt, Germany.
Published by NRC Research Press