Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Antifouling Paint Biocides pp 101–120Cite as

Emission Estimation and Chemical Fate Modelling of Antifoulants

Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC5,volume 5O)

Abstract

Triggered by the debates around entry of force of the antifouling convention of the International Maritime Organization and the upcoming ban of TBT, much progress has been made during the last ten years in the field of the environmental risk assessment of new and existing antifouling agents. In this chapter an overview is given of existing exposure assessment models and two important areas of uncertainties, such as the hydrodynamic exchange and emission estimation in estuarine and coastal harbors. Apart from tidal mixing, current and flow-induced horizontal mixing as well as density difference-driven exchange processes and sedimentation have a major impact on the environmental fate of antifouling compounds in coastal harbors. Existing generic screening models are not capable of accounting for the complex hydrodynamics and interaction with chemical fate processes. Considerable uncertainties are involved in the estimation of emissions, based on the biocide leaching rate extrapolated from laboratory studies and affected by temperature, salinity and pH, and shipping activity related parameters, i.e. number and dimensions of ships, speed, underwater surface area, and the time spent in- port. Two recent exposure assessment models for antifoulants in estuarine and marine environments, REMA and Mam-Pec are discussed. The environmental emission scenarios linked to these models were evaluated by a joint OECD-EU working group and formed the basis of the current emission scenario document (ESD-PT21) adopted for application in the frameworks of the Biocide Directive in Europe. The available models for antifoulants have been validated only for a limited number of compounds and no full quantitative sensitivity analysis studies have been performed. As it is expected that in the near future a large number of products needs to be evaluated, further refinement and validation of these models in realistic field studies is recommended.

  • Environmental fate
  • Models
  • Hydrodynamics
  • Leaching
  • Emissions

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Abbreviations

2D, 3D:

2 or 3 dimensional

DOC:

dissolved organic carbon

EXAMS:

exposure analysis modelling system, generic model developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, USA

HSE:

Health and Safety Executive, London

DELWAQ:

generic water quality model of WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

REMA:

regulatory environmental modelling of antifoulants, exposure model developed by Water Research Centre, Swindon, UK

Mam-Pec:

marine antifoulant model to predict environmental concentrations, exposure assessment model developed by Delft Hydraulics and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for CEPE

ESD-PT21:

emission scenario document for product-type 21 (antifoulants)

TBT:

tributyltin compound

ASTM:

American Standards for Testing of Materials

CEPE:

European Paintmakers Association, Brussels

IMO:

International Maritime Organization, UN, London

EUSES:

European Union system for the evaluation of substances

EQC:

equilibrium criterion models, well-known generic screening models developed by the Canadian Environmental Modelling Centre, Peterborough, Canada

QWASI:

quantitative water air sediment interaction models, developed by Canadian Environmental Modelling Centre, Peterborough, Canada

TOXFATE:

contaminant fate model, developed by National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Canada

DELFT3D:

integrated two or three-dimensional compound modelling system for inland and marine waters developed by WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

MIKE-3:

3D modelling system for estuaries, coastal waters and oceans, developed by DHI Water & Environment, Hørsholm, Denmark

ECOS:

estuarine simulation model, originally developed by Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK

ECB:

Environmental Chemical Bureau of Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy

SILTHAR:

model to simulate siltation in harbor basins, developed by WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

K ow :

n-octanol water partitioning coefficient

K d :

sediment water distribution constant (L kg−1)

K oc :

organic carbon adsorption coefficient (L kg−1)

H :

Henry's constant for air water partitioning (Pa m3 mol−1)

PEC:

predicted environmental concentration

CEFIC:

European Chemical Industry Council, Brussels

TCMS:

2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-4-methylsulfonyl (pyridine)

References

  1. Kramer KJM, Jak RG, van Hattum B, Hooftman RN, Zwolsman JJG (2004) Environ Tox Chem 23:2971

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Burns LA (2000) Exposure Analysis Modelling System (EXAMS): User Manual and System Documentation. National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boderie PMA (1994) DELWAQ 4.0: Technical Reference Manual. WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  4. HSE (1999) REMA—regulatory environmental modelling of antifoulants. Biocides and Pesticides Assessment Unit, Health and Safety Executive, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Van Hattum B, Baart AC, Boon JG (2002) Computer model to generate predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) for antifouling products in the marine environment, 2nd edn. Accompanying the release of Mam-Pec version 1.4, IVM Report (E-02/04), Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  6. Van der Plassche E, Van der Aa E (2004) Harmonisation of environmental emission scenarios: an emission scenario document for antifouling products in OECD countries (EDD-PT21). Royal Haskoning, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kiil S, Dam-Johansen K, Weinell CE, Pedersen MS, Codolar SA (2003) Biofouling 19:37

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Berg EA (1995) Eur Coat J 7:534

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas KV, Raymond K, Chadwick J, Waldock M (1999) Appl Organomet Chem 13:453–460

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas KV (1998) J Chromatogr A 825:29

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Steen RJCA, Ariese F, Van Hattum B, Jacobsen J, Jacobson A (2004) Chemosphere 57:513

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Boxall ABA, Comber SD, Conrad AU, Howcroft J, Zaman N (2000) Mar Pollut Bull 40:898

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. CEPE AWG (1998) Classes of biocidal antifouling paint commercially available in the European Union. CEPE, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  14. Omae I (2003) Appl Organomet Chem 17:81

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher AS, Hill SJ, Waldock M, Thomas KV (1997) Health and Safety Executive Contract Report 3283/R51.82, Cited in [9]

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson A, Luttik R (1994) Risk assessment of antifoulants–position paper. Paper nr. 1994-05-03 presented at the 7th meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts of Non-Agricultural Pesticides, 16–18 May 1994. National Chemicals Inspectorate, Sweden, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  17. Willingham GL, Jacobson AH (1996) ACS Sym Ser 640:225

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lindgren P, Olsson B, Unger C (1998) Antifoulingsprodukter FARTYG PM-beslut 1998-10-20, KEMI, Stockholm (in Swedish)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stronkhorst J (1996) TBT Contamination and toxicity of sediments: a persistent problem. In: Stewen U (ed) The present status of TBT-copolyment antifouling paints. Proceeding of an International One Day Symposium on antifouling paints for ocean-going vessels, 21st Febr. 1996, The Hague. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Rijkswaterstaat, DGSM; ORTEP, Association, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hare CH (1993) J Prot Coat Lin 10:83

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas KV (2001) Biofouling 17:73

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ciba (1995) Summary on ecological and health effects of Irgarol 1051, Information Brochure Ciba Geigy, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  23. Scarlett A, Donkin ME, Fileman TW, Donkin P (1997) Mar Pollut Bull 34:645

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. International Paint Ltd (1999) Commercial brochure issued by International Paint Ltd, Gateshead (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Holtrop J (1977) Internat Shipbuild Progr 1 24:270

    Google Scholar 

  26. ISL (1997) Shipping Statistical Yearbook 1997. Institute Of Shipping, Economics and Logistics, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eysink WD, Vermaas H (1983) Computational methods to estimate the sedimentation in dredged channels and harbour basins in estuarine environments. Proceedings Int Conf on Coastal and Port Eng in Dev Countries, Colombo, Sri Lanka

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eysink WD (1995) Silthar, a mathematical program for the computation of siltation in harbour basins, WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lesser GR, Roelvink JA, van Kester JATM (2004) Coast Eng 51:883

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Gerritsen H, Goede ED, Genseberger M, Uittenbogaard RE (2003) Validation document Delft3D-FLOW, Report nr. X0289. WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  31. McClimans TA, Pietrzak JD, Huess V et al. (2000) Cont Shelf Res 20:941

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Hervouet JM (2000) Hydrol Proces 13:2209

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Van der Graaf J, Reinalda R (1977) Horizontal exchange in distorted scale models, Report nr. S61, WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  34. Baart AC (2003) Mam-Pec, application at low exchange conditions. Report Z3662. WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  35. ECB (1997) EUSES—The European Union system for the evaluation of substances. Joint Research Centre European Commission, Environment Institute, European Chemicals Bureau, Ispra

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brandes LJ, Den Hollander H, Van de Meent D (1996) SimpleBox 2.0: a nested multimedia fate model for evaluating the environmental fate of chemicals. Report no. 719101029. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mackay D, Di Guardo A, Paterson S, Kicsi G, Cowan CE, Kane DM (1996) Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1638

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Harris JRW, Gorley RN, Bartlett CA (1993) ECOS version 2 user manual—an estuarine simulation shell. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ling H, Diamond M, Mackay D (1993) J Great Lakes Res 19:582

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Halfon E, Allan RJ (1995) Environ Int 21:557

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Baart A, Boon J (1998) Scremotox: A screening model for comparative ecotoxicological risk-assessment of substances entering the North Sea. WL|Delft Hydraulics, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  42. Van Hattum B (2001) TBT—a compound currently in the lime light. In: Gandrass J, Salomons W (eds) Dredged Material in the Port of Rotterdam—Interface between Rhine Catchment Area and North Sea. GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, p 277

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lamoree MH, Swart CP, Van der Horst A, Van Hattum B (2002) J Chromatogr A 970:183

    CrossRef  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Readman J (ed) (2002) Assessment of antifouling agents in coastal environments (ACE)—Final scientific and technical report (MAS3-CT98-0178). Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kovisto S (2003) Proposal for Finnish exposure scenarios for antifouling products. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  46. TGD (1996) Technical guidance document in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances—Part-III. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  47. Baur D, Jacobson A (1996) Modelling of marine antifoulants. Rohm and Haas Company, European Laboratories, Valbonne (France) and Research Laboratories, Spring House (PA, USA)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    B. van Hattum

  2. WL|Delft Hydraulics, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH, Delft, The Netherlands

    A. Baart & J. Boon

Authors
  1. B. van Hattum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Baart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Boon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. van Hattum .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    van Hattum, B., Baart, A., Boon, J. Emission Estimation and Chemical Fate Modelling of Antifoulants. In: Konstantinou, I.K. (eds) Antifouling Paint Biocides. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 5O. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/698_5_051

    Download citation

    search

    Navigation