PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 020
Hull Scrapings and Marine Coatings as a Source of Microplastics Zabin, Davidson and Ruiz (2016) discuss in-water cleaning options for ship hulls and mention that currently there are no universal standards for the performance (waste capture, cleaning effectiveness, etc.) of these cleaning systems and activities. Published reliable data regarding the efficacy of waste capture systems are limited, although Morrisey et al. (2013) quoted Hopkins, (2010) who showed that, on average, 3.8% (±0.8% SE) of biological material removed during cleaning was lost to the environment, but these losses could be up to 9%, and earlier work by Hopkins and Forrest (2008) showed that most in-water cleaning systems did not have waste capture systems and that biological material losses could be up to 12% (5.6% mean ± 2.3% SE). The relatively high variance to mean value suggests that further sampling may be needed to ensure data are representative of biological material loss (Figure 3.1). In addition, considering that biotic waste is larger in size than microplastics, this suggests that capture systems may be considerably less effective against loss of contaminants including microplastics, though more research on this assumption is required, perhaps in discussion with cleaning system designers and operatives. Aggressive cleaning has also been shown to reduce the efficacy of AFS coatings through excessive loss of metals / biocides and through roughening of the coating, potentially providing a surface at the microscopic scale to which organisms can attach (Oliveira and Granhag, 2016). In addition Oliveira and Granhag (2016) show that attachment of macro-foulers to epoxy based coatings is very strong and they recommend not cleaning such macro-fouling underwater due to coating damage and loss of biological material through shell shattering. This aspect acknowledges that there is coating damage and indicates that, as this is realised, there is a concomitant loss of polymer material potentially becoming biologically available microplastics. Figure 3.1: Underwater hull cleaning with no capture system evident Source: AUSMEPA (2010). Many hull cleaning companies claim significant recovery rates for biological material (contaminants such as heavy metals and polymers are not generally mentioned) for both remotely operated cleaning equipment and for diver operated brushes etc. These claims tend to be made on promotional material and web sites developed to sell in-water cleaning services. While the majority of in-water hull cleaning company sites viewed made no claim for recovery of material, biological or otherwise, some company web sites visited had claims regarding biological material recovery which were generally high (upwards of 95%). For those that did claim high recovery rates, no supporting data or research were readily available. Interestingly, one company site discussed a policy not to undertake in-water cleaning where pollution from release of toxic material from hull coatings may be a risk. 11PDF Image | HULL SCRAPINGS AND MARINE COATINGS AS A SOURCE OF MICROPLASTICS
PDF Search Title:
HULL SCRAPINGS AND MARINE COATINGS AS A SOURCE OF MICROPLASTICSOriginal File Name Searched:
Hull-Scrapings-report.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Development of a solar powered Electric Ship The Electricship website originally started off as a project to develop a comprehensive renewable, affordable, modular electric ship... More Info
Modular Boat Hull Composite The case for a unsinkable, modular composite hybrid boat hull... More Info
MS Burgenstock Hybrid Electric Catamaran Lake Lucerne Unique shuttle servicing Lucerne to the Burgenstock Resort... More Info
Ground Power Unit GPU Powered by Lithium Ion Batteries The goal of the Ground Power Unit is to provide a readily accessible, modular, ready-to-power solution for remote power... More Info
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@electricship.com (Standard Web Page)