Great Lakes Ballast Technology
Demonstration Project:

Abstracts & Reports

Ballast Water Research and Funding: A History and Analysis - Nicole Mays (2001). Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC., USA (Report) (Appendix)

Ballast Water Secondary Treatment Technology Review - Battelle (1998). Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC., USA (Report)

Considerations in the Design of the Primary Treatment for Ballast Systems - Parsons MG (2003). Marine Technology 40 (1): 49-60

Design of the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project - Parsons MG, Harkins RW, Mackey TP, Munro DJ & Cangelosi A (1997). Transactions SNAME 105: 323-348

Detection and Enumeration of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in the Ballast Water of Transoceanic Cargo Vessels Entering the Great Lakes - Knight IT, Wells CS, Wiggins B, Russel H, Reynolds KA & Huq A (1999). Proceedings of the General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, IL. Abstract Q-71, p.546 (Abstract)

Detection and Enumeration of Pathogenic Bacteria in Ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics - Zo Y, Grimm C, Matte M, Matte G, Knight IT, Huq A & Colwell RR (1999). Proceedings of the General Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q-317, p.594 (Abstract)

Detection of Human Pathogenic Protozoa and Viruses in Ballast Using Conventional and Molecular Methods - Reynolds KA, Knight IT, Wells CS, Pepper IL & Gerba CP (1999). Proceedings of the General Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q-318, p. 594 (Abstract)

Evaluating Bioeffectiveness of Flow-Through Mechanical Ballast Water Treatment Systems (Cyclonic Separation + UV and Filtration + UV) at the Pilot- and Full-Scales - Allegra Cangelosi, Knight IT, Balcer M, Wright D, Blatchley ER III, Reid DM, Mays NL & Taverna J (2001). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, New Orleans, LA, April 9-11, 2001 (Abstract)

Experimental Studies Comparing Biological Effectiveness of Commercially Available Ballast Treatment Systems - Allegra Cangelosi, Balcer M, Blatchley ER III, Dawson R, GAO X, Huq A, Knight IT, Mays NL, McGregor B, Reid D, Sturtevant R, Swan C, Taverna J, Wells C & Wright D (2001). Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC., USA

Full-scale Particle Removal Performance of Three Types of Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primary Treatment of Ballast Water - Parsons MG & Harkins RW (2002). Marine Technology 39(4): 211-222

Global Market Analysis of Ballast Treatment Technology - Royal Haskoning (2001). Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC., USA (Report)

Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Biological Effectiveness Test Program (includes MV Regal Princess Trials) - Allegra Cangelosi, Knight IT, Balcer M, Wright D, Dawson R, Blatchley ER III, Reid DM, Mays NL & Taverna J (2001). Proceedings of the Global Ballast Water Management Program (GloBallast) Symposium and Workshop, London, UK March 26-30, 2001(Report)

Sampling Approaches and Recommendations of the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project - Allegra Cangelosi, Nicole Mays, Don Reid & Ivor Knight. GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast) 1st International Conference on Guidelines and Standards for Ballast Water Sampling. Ballast Water, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, April 7-11, 2003 (copies available on request)

The Biological Effectiveness of Filtration as an Onboard Ballast Treatment Technology - Allegra Cangelosi, Knight IT, Balcer M, Gao X, Huq A, McGreevy JA, McGregor B, Reid D, Sturtevant R & Carlton JT (1999).Proceedings of the Ninth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference, Duluth, MN, April 26-30, 1999 (Abstract)

The Great Lakes Ballast Demonstration Project Phase 1: Final Report - Parsons MG, Moll R, Mackey TP & Farley RB (1997). Cooperative Institute of Limnology & Ecosystem Research (CILER), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Filtration Mechanical Test Program - Parsons MG & Harkins RW (1999). Proceedings of the Ninth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference, Duluth, MN, April 26-30, 1999 (Abstract)

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project Mechanical Testing Program - Parsons MG & Harkins RW (2000). Marine Technology 37(3): 129-140

The NISA Ballast Management Program: Opportunities to Add Value Through Partnerships - Allegra Cangelosi & Carrie Selberg (2000) Forum Summary & Report, February 1, 2000. Northeast-Midwest Institute (Report)

The Biological Effectiveness of Filtration
as an Onboard Ballast Treatment Technology

Cangelosi A, Knight IT, Balcer M, Gao X, Huq A, McGreevy JA, McGregor B, Reid D, Sturtevant R & Carlton JT

Presented at the Ninth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference, Duluth, MN, April 26-30, 1999

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project investigated the effectiveness of automatic backwash screen filtration of ballast water during its uptake as a means of minimizing the potential for the introduction of nonindigenous species by ships. The Great Lakes Protection Fund, the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, and collaborating Federal agencies and universities have supported this project. Initial testing during the 1997 operating season took place aboard the Seaway-sized dry-bulk carrier, the M/V Algonorth, during operations between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports. This testing provided important information on system design, operation and biological effectiveness. During the summer of 1998, the modular system was installed aboard a stationary barge docked at the Seaway Port Authority of Duluth in the Duluth/Superior Harbor of Lake Superior, to permit more controlled, intensive biological and mechanical testing in a context which -- by being at water level and within a harbor -- better simulated shipboard use. Three screen sizes (25 µm, 50 µm, and 100 µm) were evaluated aboard each experimental platform at a flow rate of 1200 - 1500 gallons per minute. The shipboard experimental platform consisted of two filter units in series and a pump mounted on the deck with piping to matched control and test upper wing ballast tanks. Barge tests consisted of a single filter unit and pump with piping to three identical catchment tanks of 175 gallons each with bottom outlets. Biological effectiveness was measured through comparing zooplankton, phytoplankton and microbial concentrations with and without filtration treatment. Results showed the filters' biological performance to be highly consistent on both experimental platforms. The two smallest filters tested achieved 95 - 99 percent removal of macrozooplankton, and 70 - 80 percent removal of microzooplankton and phytoplankton. Bacteria which attach to other organisms and matter also were significantly reduced by the smaller filter sizes, but total bacteria counts were unaffected by filtration. These results suggest that filtration could significantly reduce the risk of introductions of harmful organisms by ships, but that there would be a need for secondary treatment to achieve complete sterilization of the ballast water. The two filter series tested on board the M/V Algonorth yielded no advantages in filter efficiency, indicating that a single filter will be adequate, and the more costly complex system is unnecessary from the biological effectiveness standpoint. The findings also indicated that the filters did not have the undesirable effect of breaking up colonial or filamentous algae to yield more numerous propagules.

Evaluating Bioeffectiveness of Flow-Through
Mechanical Ballast Water Treatment Systems
(Cyclonic Separation + UV and Filtration + UV)
at the Pilot- and Full-Scale

Allegra A. Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC 20003

Ivor T. Knight, James Madison University
Mary Balcer, University of Wisconsin
David Wright, and Rodger Dawson, Environmental Research Services
Chip Blatchley, Purdue University
Donald Reid, Consultant|
Nicole Mays, Northeast-Midwest Institute
Jessica Taverna, Northeast-Midwest Institute

Presented at the Second International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, New Orleans, LA, April 9-11, 2001

International guidelines and United States law direct ships to manage ballast water to reduce unintentional organism transfers, but the only method currently available to ships, open ocean ballast water exchange (BWE), has serious limitations. Treatment alternatives that are as or more effective than BWE have been proposed, but few have been subject to comprehensive bioeffectiveness tests and there is no standard measure of bioeffectiveness. Comprehensive experiments were conducted to describe and compare the bioeffectiveness of two commercially-available ballast treatment combinations: a cyclonic separator (CS) and ultraviolet radiation (UV) system (Hyde-Optimarin), and automatic backwash screen filtration (ABSF) and UV (Ontario Hydro Technologies and Hyde-Optimarin). This paper characterizes results from the field tests, and explores ballast treatment characterization and comparison issues, generally.

Bioeffectiveness of CS and UV was evaluated at two time intervals following treatment (0 hours and 18-24 hours), two treatment contexts (MV Regal Princess installation at 880 GPM, and a barge-based platform at 1500 GPM), and varied physical/chemical water conditions (Pacific Northwest coastal, and two Lake Superior locations). CS and UV results show effectiveness at killing zooplankton, and attenuating phytoplankton and bacterial growth. Both CS and UV contributed to zooplankton mortality, while UV alone was the dominant component contributing to phytoplankton and bacteria inactivation. The shipboard system, which treated water on uptake and discharge, elevated zooplankton mortality two and a half fold relative to controls. Delayed mortality effects on zooplankton were measurable following treatment during ballasting, while immediate zooplankton mortality was evident upon treatment during deballasting, indicating that the intake treatment, storage in a ballast tank, and a slower pump rate upon discharge could contribute to zooplankton susceptibility to the treatment. Live density of zooplankton in treated water decreased by over 90% relative to intake in the shipboard application (compared to 55% in the controls). The intake-only treatment on the barge platform (1500 GPM) elevated zooplankton mortality 51% relative to controls. These findings represent a conservative estimate of zooplankton inactivation as latent mortality caused by the discharge treatment and reproductive effects were not measured, and moribund individuals were counted as live.

CS and UV reduced chlorphyll a and bacteria as well, but the CS did not contribute significantly to this effect. Initial chlorophyll a concentrations relative to controls were not altered through acute effects of the system such as removal or bleaching on either platform. Storage of the water for 18 hours in a catchment or ballast tank prior to sampling did not alter this finding. The system did reduce algal growth and accelerated die-off relative to controls. Chlorophyll a concentrations in incubated samples collected 18 hours following treatment were nearly 60% lower than controls. The system also reduced microbial and MS-2 coliphage concentrations, with UV absorbency strongly influencing system performance. The mean inactivation due to treatment was approximately one log (90%) for bacteria and 1.3 log (95%) for coliphage MS-2 at Two Harbors (UV transmittance over 90%/cm), while the mean inactivation due to treatment was approximately 0.1 log (25%) for bacteria and 0.3 log (50%) for MS-2 in Duluth (UV transmittance 30-45%). The mean reduction due to one pass through the treatment system on the MV Regal Princess was 82%, but retention for less than two hours in the ballast system raised concentrations of culturable bacteria 1.45 Log higher than levels immediately following treatment. Bacterial regrowth and/or repair during 18 - 24 hour retention in the ballast tank raised bacterial concentrations 2.62 Log. Treatment reduced bacteria concentrations over twice as effectively during discharge than during ballasting.

These results are compared to the effectiveness of ABSF and UV based on barge-platform tests only. UV in combination with ABSF yielded higher (by nearly twice) reductions in live zooplankton than CS and UV, and equivalent reductions in algal and bacterial growth. ABSF alone consistently reduced macrozooplankton by over 95%, and microzooplankton (rotifers) by over 80% relative to controls. The ABSF alone caused up to 30% (average 20%) reduction in initial concentrations of chlorophyll a. The treatment achieved much higher reductions in concentrations of specific algal taxa such as dinoflagellates (>97%). The ABSF did not cause an increase in the number of smaller algal fragments due to break-up. However, the ABSF alone may enhance algal growth slightly during retention following treatment through selective removal of grazers, but the increase was not statistically significant. The ABSF alone did not reduce total culturable bacteria, but did reduce attached bacteria concentrations. The effects of ABSF in combination with UV on total culturable bacteria were not different from those of CS and UV.

Clarification of physical/chemical parameters governing treatment performance, and a common performance metric (reduction and inactivation in specific terms) are critical accompaniments of comparable ballast treatment system effectiveness assessments. Understanding the interactions between ballast water treatment processes and ships' ballast systems and the receiving system are necessary to differentiate biologically meaningful treatment effectiveness and ostensible treatment effectiveness.

Key Words: Ballast, Treatment, Biological Effectiveness, Evaluation

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration
Project Mechanical Testing Program

Michael G. Parsons, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Richard W. Harkins, Lake Carriers' Association, Cleveland, OH

Submitted to the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers' journal Marine Technology for publication peer review on February 10, 1999

Extended Abstract

The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project has investigated the effectiveness of automatic backwash screen filtration of ballast water during its uptake as a means of minimizing the potential for the introduction of nonindigenous species. The Great Lakes Protection Fund; the State of Minnesota, upon the recommendation of the Legislative Commission for Minnesota Resources (LCMR); the Lake Carriers' Association; Northeast-Midwest Institute; Federal agencies and universities have supported this project.

Initial testing during the 1997 operating season involved testing onboard the Seaway-sized bulk carrier M/V Algonorth during operations between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports. This testing provided important information on system design, operations, and filtration biological effectiveness, but the mechanical test results were of limited value as benchmark experiments. During the summer of 1998, the modular system was installed on a barge located in the Duluth, Minnesota, harbor to permit more controlled, intensive mechanical and biological testing.

The overall design of the shipboard and the barge ballast water filtration test installations are briefly summarized. The barge mechanical test program involved extended testing with 25 micron, 50 micron, and 100 micron filter screens at a nominal 1,500 U.S. gpm using an operating profile that approximates normal ship ballast operations. The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Project filter mechanical test program yielded the following conclusions:

• The barge installation and test program in Duluth/Superior harbor provided an effective model of shipboard operations and permitted a much more controllable and efficient test effort (84 hours of filter operation in 16 calendar days) than possible onboard an operating vessel.
• Duluth/Superior harbor was representative of general harbor conditions, but much higher sediment loads can be found throughout the world. The peak turbidity experienced (5.4 NTU) is just over the 5.0 NTU typically considered the upper limit for water treatment plant intake. Patches of filamentous green algae were also observed during the test period.
• The use of a 5 mm prescreen upstream of the filter was successful in protecting the finer screens and demonstrating that two filters in series, as initially used in the M/V Algonorth testing, should not be necessary in ballast filtration applications.
• The 25 m filter, with an overall count efficiency (based upon the total count of all particles above the nominal filter rating) of about 85%, and the 50 m filter, with an overall count efficiency of about 90%, performed as should be expected. This is strong performance for a real world test with pliable and variable shaped particles.

The principal lessons learned in the design, installation, and mechanical testing of the ballast water filters include the following:

• Adequate system hydraulic stiffness or a pressure sustaining valve downstream of the filters will be needed to provide a pressure differential of 2.4 kPa (35 psid) required between the discharge chamber and the backwash chamber to drive the backwash process.
• Careful manufacture and quality control will be needed in the construction of filter screen elements. The project experienced split screens early during the 1997 M/V Algonorth testing and the 100 m screen tested in 1998 may have had an internal screen failure.
• The backwash timing stated by the vendor had to be extended significantly to achieve effective cleaning in the shipboard application. The backwash flow rate and effectiveness requires careful attention in future designs.
• Future designs, particularly those of the much larger sizes needed for bulk vessels, must have improved features to facilitate the alignment and handling of the heavy filter screen elements. Vertical, rather than horizontal, orientation would allow the use of hoists making the crew's task of changing elements more reasonable.

Key words: ballast water filtration, nonindigenous species, filtration efficiency

Northeast-Midwest Institute Biological Pollution Contacts

Nicole Mays - Policy Analyst (Ph. 202-544-5200)

Biological Pollution | Home | Top of Page

http://www.nemw.org/abstracts.htm