Effectiveness testing of spill-treating agents

Fingas, Mervin F.; Stoodley, Robert; Laroche, Nanci

doi:10.1016/s0269-8579(05)80048-6

Cited by 34 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the Ohmsett and Exdet tests resulted in higher DE regardless of oil viscosity. Large variations in the reported DE can be attributed to differences in aspects of test design, such as mixing energy, settling/surfacing time and oil collection from tanks or flasks [5] [20]. For example the low mixing energy of the WSL, biases the DE low compared to the other tests, whereas the high mixing and reduced wall effects of the tank in the Ohmsett test biases the DE high compared to the BFT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The category definitions are as follows: Light crude has an API gravity higher than 31.1˚ (<0.87 g/cm 3 ), medium crude has an API gravity between 22.3˚ and 31.1˚ (between 0.87 to 0.92 g/cm 3 ), and heavy crude has an API gravity between 22.3˚ and 10.0˚ (0.92 to 1.0 g/cm 3 ), and extra heavy crude has an API gravity <10.0˚ (>1.0 g/cm 3 ) [19]; D The category definitions are as follows: Very light crude has a viscosity < 10 cSt, light crude between 10 -100 cSt, medium crude between 100 -500 cSt, and heavy crude > 500 cSt. [20]. derately turbulent mixing, equivalent to an energy dissipation rate of 0.163 W/kg water which is approximately 2 orders of magnitude greater than that obtainable in the SFT [11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Laboratory-Scale Testing of Dispersant Effectiveness of 23 Crude Oils Using Four Different Testing Protocols*

Holder¹,

Conmy²,

Venosa

2015

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A controlled laboratory study was conducted to measure the dispersion effectiveness of Corexit 9500 on 23 different crude oils. This study was a part of a larger project initiated by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) testing 20 oils to compare the predictive value of laboratory dispersant effectiveness tests with their larger scale test conducted at Ohmsett, BSEE's national oil spill response test facility located in Leonardo, NJ. The test used in this study was the Baffled Flask Test (BFT), which is planned for adoption as EPA's official testing protocol for listing commercial dispersant products on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, replacing the current Swirling Flask Test (SFT) [1]. In addition, the results of 3 additional oils, the 2 used in the SFT and BFT as currently written plus another reference oil, are presented. The temperature used for the tests was 15˚C, to match the temperature used at Ohmsett. The dispersion effectiveness ranged from 3.4% to 93%. The BFT is a laboratory test with results that are inversely correlated with oil viscosity and therefore has predictive value in the decision to use a dispersant in the event of a spill.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparative Laboratory-Scale Testing of Dispersant Effectiveness of 23 Crude Oils Using Four Different Testing Protocols*

Holder¹,

Conmy²,

Venosa

2015

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The efficiency of solidifier depends on the type and composition of oil (Fingas et al, 1990). Solidifiers have not been used extensively in the past because of theissue of recovery after solidification large amount is required (16-200% by weight of oil mass) and they have a relatively lower efficiency than dispersants (Fingas et al, 1995).…”

Section: Chemical Remediation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediation Technologies for Marine Oil Spills: A Critical Review and Comparative Analysis

Dave¹

2011

American Journal of Environmental Sciences

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem statement: Anthropogenic activities pollute the oceans with oil through land run off, vessels accidents, periodic tanker discharges and bilge discharges. Oil spills are environmental disasters that impact human, plants and wild life including birds, fish and mammals. Approach: In this study, the International Guidelines for Preventing Oils Spills and Response to Disasters were reviewed and the characteristics of oil spills were discussed. The advantages and disadvantages of various oil spill response methods were evaluated. A comparative analysis were performed on the currently available remediation technologies using 10 evaluation criteria that included cost, efficiency, time, impact on wild life, reliability, level of difficulty, oil recovery, weather, effect on physical/chemical characteristics of oil and the need for further treatment. The advantages and disadvantages of each response method were used to determine the score assigned to that method. Results: There are many government regualtions for individual countries that serve as prevention mesures for oil spills in the offshore environment. They have to do with the design of equipment and machinery used in the offshore environment and performing the necessary safety inspections. The primary objectives of response to oil spill are: to prevent the spill from moving onto shore, reduce the impact on marine life and speed the degradation of any unrecovered oil. There are several physical, chemical, thermal and biological remediation technologies for oil spills including booms, skimmers, sorbents, dispersants, insitu burning and bioremediation. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages and the choice of a particular technique will depend on: type of oil, physical, biological and economical characteristics of the spill, location, weather and sea conditions, amount spilled and rate of spillage, depth of water column, time of the year and effectiveness of technique. Coclusion: Based on the comparative analysis, oil recovery with mechanical methods and the application of dispersants followed by bioremediation is the most effective response for marine oil spill.

show abstract

“…Dispersants are primarily applied to an oil slick before it reaches a shoreline to prevent deposition. Researchers at Environment Canada have done extensive work on the efficiency and viability of dispersants as an emergency spill response (Fingas et al, 1990). In contrast, shoreline cleaning agents are formulated to remove deposited oil from beaches or other coastline surfaces.…”

Section: Shoreline Cleaning Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Flush Water Temperature and Type on Commercial Shoreline Cleaning Agent Efficiency

Tumeo

Coté

1998

Journal of Soil Contamination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness testing of spill-treating agents

Cited by 34 publications

References 5 publications

Comparative Laboratory-Scale Testing of Dispersant Effectiveness of 23 Crude Oils Using Four Different Testing Protocols*

Comparative Laboratory-Scale Testing of Dispersant Effectiveness of 23 Crude Oils Using Four Different Testing Protocols*

Remediation Technologies for Marine Oil Spills: A Critical Review and Comparative Analysis

Effect of Flush Water Temperature and Type on Commercial Shoreline Cleaning Agent Efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About