PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 021
Hull Scrapings and Marine Coatings as a Source of Microplastics Whilst some of the in-water cleaning industry states that waste capture rates are high, Sundt, Schulze and Syversen (2014) recommend that the only way to undertake in-water cleaning and to capture all waste material (presumably biological and paint / biocide) is in an isolated water body. However, whilst available research is based on biofouling material, the work by Woods, Floerl and Jones (2012) shows that even dry-dock filter / flush systems can still let material through though at considerably reduced extent to in-water cleaning. Thus, considering differing industrial and research opinions on the effectiveness of pollutant capture technologies and lack of firm guidelines on best practice, it appears that, in relation to microplastics (and associated micro pollutants) from marine coatings, further research on this issue is required. Zabin, Davidson and Ruiz (2016) commented that, due to regulation and restriction on in-water cleaning in some areas, operations at sites where the activity is not restricted is seeing an increase. In a risk management study undertaken for Hawaii, it was noted that in-water cleaning releases possibly viable organisms and paint components. The authors noted that in-water cleaning was increasingly restricted or banned in other locations thus possibly placing Hawaii at increased unregulated risk from the industry as other areas control the practice. On the other hand, in some areas such as the United Kingdom, the practice is seeing growth, with relatively recent licensing in Portland Harbour and the Port of Southampton advertising the practice through contractors. It should be noted, however, that the Port of Portland conducted a risk assessment before the in- water cleaning was permitted. Their contractor also claims that all waste is collected, and that the process is approved for cleaning silicone foul release paints (which can be fragile when abraded) and is sensitive to hull coatings in general (though see concerns regarding cleaning damage to hulls above, Oliveira and Granhag, 2016). Thus it is assumed that damage is minimised, and debris collection is optimised. However, the process may not have been assessed for microplastics release; there is a shellfishery industry near Portland Harbour (Cefas, 2008), which may prove to be a useful source of future monitoring data at this location through bivalve filtration of plastics. Pagoropoulos et al. (2017) undertook a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to consider the economic benefit and related environmental impact from in-water cleaning of merchant ships. In this study, the focus was on self-polishing anti-fouling compounds with related acrylic copolymer strategy. The work considered costs and benefits, and Pagoropoulos et al. (2017) noted that the regulation of in-water cleaning lacked uniformity. This is among the issues being addressed through the GloFouling project, which will include the development of measures at the national level to promote uniform implementation of the Biofouling Guidelines. Noting that several ports are hubs for in-water cleaning (e.g. Singapore), Pagoropoulos et al. (2017) showed that, for example, in South Africa all in-water cleaning is banned apart from at offshore anchorages, thus highlighting a global disparity in in-water cleaning approaches and differing interpretation of risks and potential financial opportunities. The work goes on to discuss the assessed risks associated with in-water cleaning and, although AFS factors are specifically considered, the research does not include any detail. For this report, the lead author (Aris Pagoropoulos) was contacted and the question regarding microplastics release from anti-fouling systems was discussed. He was happy to consider this and stated that, during the study, he asked the paper’s (Pagoropoulos et al. 2017) co-authors, who have significant LCA and industry experience, about the epoxy (i.e. plastics); this did not receive a satisfactory response (Pagoropoulos pers. comm., 2018). A further comment was made that LCA has limitations and that from information given to the authors the article was written “on the implicit understanding that the impact of epoxy emissions is basically zero across every impact category”. Pagoropoulos (pers. comm., 2018), further commented that “you have a couple of tons of epoxy on each ship that over the five years’ lifecycle just wash off like soap. Where does it go? And what is the impact of it?” 12PDF 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)