HOW WELL DO TODAY S BALLAST WATER FILTERS PERFORM IN NATURAL FRESH WATER? A Northeast-Midwest Institute Webinar

Transcription

1 HOW WELL DO TODAY S BALLAST WATER FILTERS PERFORM IN NATURAL FRESH WATER? A Northeast-Midwest Institute Webinar

2 Objective To support filter system (FS), and thus ballast water management system (BWMS), freshwater performance improvements through: Generating reliable information on commercially available FS performance in natural freshwater; and Exploring trade-offs between selected operational and biological performance endpoints.

3 The Players Great Ships Initiative (GSI) Team

4 Ship Owners The Players

5 The Players Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Filter System (FS) Developers

6 The Players Funders

7 Webinar Outline Introduction and Background The Problems of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Transfers The Role of BWMS and Filtration Why Test Filter Performance in Natural Freshwater?

8 Webinar Outline (Continued) Experimental Design Endpoints Experimental Conditions and Test Structure Analyses Results Biological Operational Statistical

9 The Problem of AIS Transfers by Ships Naam: Derdejaars studenten Kust en Zeemanagement Organisatie: Van Hall Larenstein

10 The Role of BWMS and Filtration Source Water Ship Ballast Tank Raw Water Physical Separation Secondary Treatment Treated Water

11 Why Test FS Performance in Natural Fresh Water Vs. With Glass Beads? Vs. With Cultured Organisms? Vs. Brackish or Salt Assemblages?

12 Natural Diversity is

13 Not Like Glass Beads

14 Not Like Organism Monocultures

15 Not the Same Across Salinities FRESHWATER MARINE

16 Measured Parameters, Experimental Conditions and Test Structure, Sample Assessment and Analyses EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

17 Experimental Design: Measured Parameters Operational Conditions Pressure Drop Flow Loss to Backflush (Actual Flow Rate) Organisms by Regulated Size Class (Plankton Only) µm (most zooplankton) µm (protists) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)/Particulate Organic Matter (POM) (Not all Data or Methods Described Here )

18 Experimental Conditions and Test Structure Various Filter Technologies Various Nominal Pore Size (Developer ID) Various Target Flow Rates (Developer ID)

19 Filter A The Filters B C D E F G H

20 Filter Trade Name A -- B C Filtersafe Model BS-100 Amiad Omega IE The Filters D E GEA Westfalia Kuraray MICROFADE F -- G H Filtersafe Model BS-100 Amiad Omega IE

21 The Filters Filter Trade Name Approach A -- Candle B Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen C Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen D GEA Westfalia Multi-Screen E Kuraray MICROFADE Polyolefin F -- Screen G Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen H Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen

22 The Filters Filter Trade Name Approach NPS (µm) A -- Candle 40 B Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen 40 C Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen 40 D GEA Westfalia Multi-Screen 20 E Kuraray MICROFADE Polyolefin 10 F -- Screen 40 G Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen 25 H Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen 30

23 The Filters Filter Trade Name Approach NPS (µm) TFR (m 3 /hr) A -- Candle B Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen C Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen D GEA Westfalia Multi-Screen E Kuraray MICROFADE Polyolefin F -- Screen G Filtersafe Model BS-100 Screen H Amiad Omega IE Multi-Screen

24 Experimental Conditions Variable Intake Conditions (Subject to Nature)

25 Common Protist Taxa in Duluth-Superior Harbor Filamentous diatoms Free-living centric diatoms Filamentous blue-greens Colonial, motile greens Flagellates: Cryptomonas and Chroomonas-types

26 T Cells/mL Unknown Protists and Animals Greens Dinoflagellates Diatoms Cryptophytes and Other Small Flagellates Chrysophytes Blue Greens

27 Common Zooplankton Taxa in Duluth-Superior Harbor MICRO Rotifers Soft bodied Loricate Copepods nauplii Mollusca larval Dreissena MACRO Copepods Calanoids, Cyclopoids, Cladocerans - Bosmina, Daphnia, Sidids

28 2009 Live Zooplankton Density 1.E+06 9.E+05 8.E+05 Number Live/m3 7.E+05 6.E+05 5.E+05 4.E+05 3.E+05 2.E+05 1.E+05 0.E+00 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8 Nauplii Copepods Cladocerans Dreissena Rotifers

29 GSI Land Based BWMS Test Facility Experimental Conditions GSI Facility and Test Lay-Out Structure: Experimental Venue

30 GSI Land Based BWMS Test Facility Experimental Conditions and Test Structure: Experimental Venue

31 Test Structure Establish Test Duration Standard Unit Volume Based on FS Target Flow Rate (for a 250 m 3 /hour FS, Unit Volume = 250 m 3 ) Control for Intake Biota Variability as Possible Multiple Replicates (3 tests X 4 days)= N=12 replicates/fs Alternate Paired FS Testing Sessions Elevated Solids for 1/3 of Each FS Test

32 Test Structure Round 1 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Filter A Filter B Filter B Filter A 2 Volumes Ambient 2 Volumes Ambient 2 Volumes Ambient 2 Volumes Ambient 1 Volume Amended 1 Volume Amended 1 Volume Amended 1 Volume Amended

33

34

35

36

37 Test Structure Monitor all Conditions (Controlled or Not) Across Test Cycles for Later Analysis of Possible Association with FS Performance Outcomes Pre-Filter Post-Filter Sample Collection Tubs Whole Water

38 Sample Assessment

39 Sample Assessment Samples Collected, Handled and Analyzed according to GSI Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Detailed Methods Presented in the Final Report

40 Biology Data Analysis Design Organism (Live and/or Total) Percent Reduction Discharge Densities of Organisms (Live and/or Total) Operational Flow Loss to Backflush Pressure Drop Statistical Simple Aggregation Mixed Model

41 Intake Conditions, Operational and Biological Results EIGHT FILTERS, SIX WEEKS LATER.

42 Intake Conditions: Zooplankton Community

43 Intake Conditions: Protist Community

44 Operational Results Filter Operational Data Summary 12 7 Backflush Ratio (%) 2 Differential Pressure (bar) Kuraray 10µm GEA 20µm Filtersafe 25µm Amiad 30µm A 40µm Filtersafe 40µm Amiad 40µm F 40µm

45 Biological Results: Macrozooplankton 99.98% 99.99% 99.95% 99.99% 99.21% 99.28% 99.62% Percent Reduction Macrozooplankton Kuraray (10 µm) GEA (20 µm) Filtersafe (25 µm) Amiad (30 µm) Filter A (40 µm Filter (Nominal Pore Size) Filtersafe (40 µm) Amiad (40 µm) 54.67% Filter F (40 µm)

46 99.7% 99.4% Microzooplankton 95.4% 99.8% 96.3% Percent Reduction Microzooplankton Kuraray (10 µm) GEA (20 µm) Filtersafe (25 µm) Amiad (30 µm) 40.4% Filter A (40 µm) Filter (Nominal Pore Size) 37.1% Filtersafe (40 µm) Amiad (40 µm) 44% Filter F (40 µm)

47 Protists 89.5% Percent Reduction Protists Kuraray (10 µm) 48.6% GEA (20 µm) 53.9% Filtersafe (25 µm) 59.6% Amiad (30 µm) 23.1% Filter A (40 µm) Filter (Nominal Pore Size) 22% Filtersafe (40 µm) 29.5% Amiad (40 µm) 31.6% Filter F (40 µm)

48 Percent Reduction % 99.73% 99.42% 48.64% 53.92% 95.37% 59.64% 99.81% Protists Microzooplankton 23.05% 22% 40.45% 37.11% 29.54% 31.62% 96.28% 99.98% 99.99% 99.95% 99.99% 99.21% 99.28% 99.62% Kuraray (10 µm) GEA (20 µm) Filtersafe (25 µm) Macrozooplankton Amiad (30 µm) A (40 µm) Filter (Nominal Pore Size) Filtersafe (40 µm) Amiad (40 µm) 44.05% 54.67% F (40 µm)

49 Total Macrozooplankton Density: Pre- and Post-Filter (Steps 1 and 3) Filter Nominal Pore Size (µm) Avg. Pre-Filter Density (#/m 3 ) Avg. Post-Filter Density (#/m 3 ) Avg. Reduction (%) Kuraray , GEA 20 46, Filtersafe , Amiad , A , Filtersafe , Amiad , F ,917 24,

50 Total Microzooplankton Density: Pre- and Post-Filter (Steps 1 and 3) Filter Nominal Pore Size (µm) Avg. Pre-Filter Density (#/m 3 ) Avg. Post-Filter Density (#/m 3 ) Avg. Reduction (%) Kuraray ,636 1, GEA ,329 4, Filtersafe ,858 16, Amiad , A , , Filtersafe , , Amiad ,989 11, F , ,

51 Numbers on Discharge - Protists and < 50 µm) Filter Nominal Pore Size (µm) Avg. Pre-Filter (#/ml) Avg. Post-Filter (#/ml) Avg. Reduction (%) Kuraray , GEA ,655 1, Filtersafe , Amiad ,496 1, A ,139 3, Filtersafe ,777 4, Amiad ,755 1, F ,591 1,

52 Statistical Association Analysis Simple Aggregation: Take mean value from repeated test cycles to yield one data point per FS for variables subject to comparison. Use a scatter plot to assess correlation. Mixed Model: Consolidate data into mixed model to reveal associations beyond repeated measurement similarities associated with unique characteristics of a given FS.

53 Simple Aggregation Outcomes: Operational and Biological Performance µm Meant Higher 10 µm and < 50 µm (0.72, p=0.046) No Apparent Correlation between Pressure Differential and Organism % Reduction No Apparent Correlation between Backflush Flow Rate and Organism % Reduction

54 Mixed Model Outcomes: Intake Conditions and FS Performance Higher Intake Organism Densities Meant Higher Post-Filter Organism Densities Highest Intake Density Accounted for Microzooplankton Discharge Density 93,080/m 3 Higher than Lowest Intake Density (p=0.0001). Protists: 1,579/mL increase in Post Density (p<0.0001).

55 Freshwater Zooplankton Size Effect?

56 Live, Dead, Total Zooplankton Filter Post-Filtration Avg. Total Zooplankton (#/m 3 ) Post-Filtration Avg. Live Zooplankton (#/m 3 ) Post Filtration Avg. Live Zooplankton µm (#/m 3 ) Kuraray (10 µm) 2,336 ± 1,668 1,355 ± 1,163 1,209 ± 1,146 GEA (20 µm) 6,555 ± 5,955 1,029 ± ± 63 Filtersafe (25 µm) 21,219 ± 1,997 6,078 ± 1,812 4,243 ± 1,320 Amiad (30 µm) 419 ± ± ± 6 A (40 µm) 159,622 ± 49,777 71,272 ± 18,316 62,841 ± 13,906 Filtersafe (40 µm) 171,661 ± 35,486 93,345 ± 25,899 79,297 ± 22,645 Amiad (40 µm) 9,790 ± 2,679 6,907 ± 2,132 4,551 ± 1,807 F (40 µm) 124,441 ± 38,816 69,322 ± 28,468 64,211 ± 30,122

57 Report Out Separate Report for Each Participating FS Developer; Final Report on Experiment as a Whole Posted to the NEMWI and GSI Websites. and

58 QUESTIONS? A Northeast-Midwest Institute Webinar