Environmental Chemistry Letters

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 203–208 | Cite as

A preliminary assessment of levels of antifouling booster biocides in harbours and marinas of the island of Gran Canaria, using SPE-HPLC

  • Álvaro Sánchez Rodríguez
  • Zoraida Sosa Ferrera
  • José Juan Santana Rodríguez
Original Paper

Abstract

An analytical procedure was developed to allow for the study of the levels of concentration of biocides in the various different ports on the island of Gran Canaria, The Canary Islands. The analytes studied were extracted from water samples using solid-phase extraction and then determined by high-performance liquid chromatography using a diode array detector. The relative standard deviations of the developed procedure were under 12%. Recoveries over 85% and limits of detection between 0.007 and 0.4 μg/L were obtained for all the analytes. The method was applied to the analysis of sea water samples from the ports and marinas on the island of Gran Canaria.

Keywords

Irgarol 1051 Diuron Chlorothalonil Dichlofluanid TCMTB Thiram 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 

References

  1. CE (2003) European directive 782/2003Google Scholar
  2. Cresswell T, Richards JP, Glegg GA, Readman JW (2006) The impact of legislation on the usage and environmental concentrations of Irgarol 1051 in UK coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull 52:1169–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Evans SM, Birchenough AC, Brancato MS (2000) The TBT Ban: out of the frying pan into the fire? Mar Pollut Bull 40:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoch M (2001) Organotin compounds in the environment—an overview. Appl Geochem 16:719–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lambert SJ, Thomas KV, Davy AJ (2006) Assessment of the risk posed by the antifouling booster biocides Irgarol 1051 and diuron to freshwater macrophytes. Chemosphere 63:734–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lindsay S (1992) High performance liquid chromatography. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Manzo S, Buono S, Cremisini C (2006) Toxic effects of irgarol and diuron on sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus early development, fertilization, and offspring quality. Arch Environ Con Tox 51:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martínez K, Ferrer I, Hernando D, Fernández-Alba AR, Marcé RM, Borrull F, Barceló D (2001) Occurrence of antifouling biocides in the Spanish Mediterranean marine environment. Environ Technol 22:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Okamura H, Watanabe T, Aoyama I, Hasobe M (2002) Toxicity evaluation of new antifouling compounds using suspension-cultured fish cells. Chemosphere 46:945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Thomas KV, McHugh M, Waldock M (2002) Antifouling paint booster biocides in UK coastal waters: inputs, occurrence and environmental fate. Sci Total Environ 293:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Voulvoulis N (2006) Antifouling paint booster biocides: occurrence and partitioning in water and sediments. In: Konstantinou I (ed) The handbook of environmental chemistry- 5.0 Antifouling Paint Biocides. Springer, New York, pp 155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Voulvoulis N, Scrimshaw MD, Lester JN (1999) Alternative antifouling biocides. Appl Organomet Chem 13:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yebra DM, Kiil S, Dam-Johansen K (2004) Antifouling technology—past, present and future steps towards efficient and environmentally friendly antifouling coatings. Prog Org Coat 50:75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Álvaro Sánchez Rodríguez
    • 1
  • Zoraida Sosa Ferrera
    • 1
  • José Juan Santana Rodríguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Marine SciencesUniversity of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaLas Palmas de Gran CanariaSpain

Personalised recommendations