United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-84-085 May 1984
Project Summary
Surface Treatment Agents for
Protection of Shorelines from Oil
Spills
Carl R. Foget, Robert W. Castle, Susan Naughton, James D. Sartor, Michael
Miller, Philip Dibner, Donald E. Glowe, Frederick Weber, B.J. Yager, and
P.E. Cassidy
Surface treatment agents for protect-
ing shorelines from spills were evaluated
by means of a literature review, labora-
tory tests, and field tests. Results of the
literature review and laboratory tests
were used as the basis for (1) analyzing
the results of earlier tests on surface
treatment agents for oil spills, (2)
comparing effectiveness of surface
treatment agents, and (3) recommend-
ing agents for preliminary field tests.
The surface treatment agents evaluated
during the preliminary laboratory tests
included film-forming, dispersing, and
surface-collecting agents. These (pre-
liminary) tests recommended two film-
forming agents (polyvinyl acetate and
xanthan gum), a surface collecting
agent, and a flowing film of water for
full-scale field tests which were con-
ducted at Sewaren Beach, New Jersey.
The full-scale field tests showed that
polyvinyl acetate provided both beach
and marsh plots with the most effective
long-term protection. On the marsh
plots, xanthan gum appeared to be the
most effective short-term agent for
protecting vegetation and substrate
from oil contamination. The water film
provided the best protection against
beach surface contamination by oil, but
it tended to erode channels in the sand,
allowing some oil penetration. The
water film was not effective for salt
marsh protection. The surface collecting
agent effectively confined oil under
nonturbulent conditions.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
This report discusses the results of a
literature review, laboratory tests, pre-
liminary field tests, and full-scale field
tests to evaluate the effectiveness of
various surface treatment agents in
protecting shorelines from oil spills. The
state-of-the-art for cleanup of oil-
contaminated shorelines is well developed
only for beaches; procedures for protect-
ing other types of shorelines are less
advanced. In 1974, the American Petro-
leum Institute (API) and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) funded
four projects to discover useful materials
for protecting beaches and salt marshes
from oil spills and for reducing shoreline
cleanup efforts after oil contamination.
Several prospective agents were recom-
mended for further testing.
The API then obtained additional
funding from EPA to conduct further
research and tests on the recommended
agents. The API contracted with Wood-
ward-Clyde Consultants and their sub-
contractors (Texas Research Institute,
Inc., and URS Research Company). The
present study was then conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness, toxicity, and
application techniques of the recom-
mended agents. The surface treatment
agents tested during this project are listed
in Table 1.
V
-------
Preliminary Evaluation and
Tests
The first phase of this project used
literature reviews and laboratory tests to
develop baseline data on the eight
recommended agents. The literature
review provided a basis for analyzing
previous tests of surface treatment
agents and comparing their effectiveness
A summary of the findings from the
literature review appears in Table 2.
Three types of laboratory tests were
conducted on the surface agents: (1)
screening tests for solution and film
properties (solubility, film formation, etc.),
(2) small-scale tests of beach protection
on mock beaches, and (3) percolation
tests (on three agents) for effectiveness in
preventing oil seepage. The tests also
evaluated the toxicity of several of the
agents on cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), a
common salt marsh vegetation, and on
the eastern blue crab (Callinectus sapidus).
Table 1. Surface Treatment Agents Evaluated During Program
Following the laboratory evaluation,
several agents were selected for prelim-
inary field tests at Seidler Beach, New
Jersey. The agents selected for testing
were Oil Herder (a surface collecting
agent), Corexit 7664 (a dispersant), BP
1100-x (a dispersant), and polyvinyl
alcohol/borate gel (a film-forming agent).
The tests were conducted by spilling a
quantity of light Iranian crude oil (approxi-
mately 50 to 75 liters for each test area)
onto the water within containment booms
just before high tide. The booms were
then pulled onto the beach, drawing oil
Agent
Full-Scale
Preliminary Field Tests
Laboratory Field Tests (Sewaren)
Sodium silicate x
Sodium borate/ 'sodium silicate
mixture x
Citrus pectin x
Xanthan gum x
Polyvinyl acetate x
Flowing film of water x
Surface collecting agent (Oil Herder) x
Dispersant A (Corexit 7664) x
Dispersant
Dispersant
Table 2.
B (BP 1 100-X)
C (BP 1 100 WDJ
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
onto the test areas. Results were correlated
in terms of substrate protection and ease
of contaminant removal.
Full-Scale Field Tests
After the preliminary tests, full-scale
field tests of three surface treatment
agents were undertaken in two tasks —
beach testing and salt marsh testing.
These tests were conducted at Sewaren
Beach, New Jersey, using three types of
oil as contaminants: Arabian crude oil.
fuel oil No. 2, and fuel oil No.
6. A selected
Summary of Results from the Literature Review of Surface Agents
Summary of Previous Investigations
Agent Type
Polyvinyl
acetate
Surface
collecting
agent
Dispersing
agent
Xanthan
gum
Citrus
pectin
Borate-
silicate
mixture
Sodium
silicate
Mechanism
Solid film
0
Has greater
spreading force
than oil, liquid
monomolecular
layer
Adjusts inter-
facial surface
tension, develops
micelles of oil
in water
Soft polar film
Soft polar film
Solid film (if
cured)
Solid barrier
(if cured)
Micrococcus Unknown
cerif icans
Water film
Liquid film
Form/Application
Synthetic polymer/cone. (55%)
aqueous suspensions; sprayed
on, high-pressure, airless
sprayer; available dry
Long-chain alcohols in organic
solvent (water insoluble)
Nonionic detergent/ aqueous
solution (6%)
Sprayed on, dilute (O 5%) aque-
ous solution; available as dry
powder or concentrated solution
Sprayed on, dilute (1%) aqueous
solution, available as dry
powder
Inorganic coating, dilute (1 -3%)
aqueous solution, sprayed on
Inorganic coating, dilute (1%)
aqueous solution; sprayed on
Freeze-dried, (3%) aqueous sus-
pension; sprayed on, garden
sprayer
Sprinkler system
Possible Limitations
Removal, color, rainy/freez-
ing weather, must have 1 hr
to dry before it is effective
Short duration, loss of ef-
fectiveness, might need
continuous supervision
Must be applied directly to
oil, large volume required
Short duration. 1 hr drying
time necessary
Short duration, 1 hr drying
time necessary
Toxicity?, pH, drying time
necessary
Toxicity?, pH. drying time
necessary
Not commercially available.
large preparation effort.
half life, drying time
necessary
Continual application re-
quired (countercurrent).
equipment costs
Sand Rocks
Effective Effective
Effective in lab Effective in lab
and beach tests and beach tests
(less effective
on dry rocks)
Not tested Not tested
Not tested Effective on
dry rocks
Not tested Effective on dry
rocks but less
effective than
xanthan gum
Not effective Effective
Not effective Effective
Not tested Effective on dry
rocks, less ef-
fective than
polysaccharides
Not tested Not tested
Marsh Grass
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
Possibly
effective
Possibly
effective
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
Not tested
-------
section of beach was divided into test and
control plots each measuring 9.2 m2. A
section of salt marsh was similarly
divided into plots measuring approxi-
mately 3.6 m2. The plots were laid out
along a portion of the upper intertidal
zone. One plot in the beach and one in the
salt marsh were designated as the
controls, and the remainder were desig-
nated as test plots to be coated with
different surface treatment agents.
Booms were deployed in the water
around the perimeter of the test zone.
Just before tidal ebb, a specified volume
of oil was manually released on the
water. The ebbing tidal action and
prevailing wind deposited the oil on the
surface of the shoreline test and control
plots. After the tide had receded, data
were collected to assess the performance
of each agent in protecting the shoreline
from oil contamination. The ease with
which the oil could be removed from the
test plots was also evaluated. Photogra-
phy was the major method of data
collection and was used primarily to
provide a permanent record of the
observations. Depth of oil penetration
into the test plots was determined by
cutting sections across the plots, taking
filter paper blots at 7.6 and 15.2 cm, and
examining the filter papers under ultra-
violet lights to determine the presence of
oil by its characteristic fluorescence.
Three film-forming agents were tested:
polyvinyl acetate, xanthan gum, and a
flowing film of water. A surface-collecting
agent was also tested by applying the
collector to the beach and salt marsh
substrate and also to the water ahead of
the approaching oil slick.
Conclusions
The film-forming agents tested are
ranked in Table 3. All three of the agents
provided some degree of protection from
oil contamination of beaches and salt
marshes, but polyvinyl acetate provided
the best long-term protection for both
types of substrates. This agent proved to
be the most durable and remained on the
test plots for at least eight tidal cycles. On
the marsh plots, xanthan gum appeared
to be the most effective short-term agent
for protecting vegetation and substrate
from oil contamination. The water film
provided the best protection against
beach surface contamination by oil, but it
tended to erode channels in the sand,
allowing some oil penetration. The water
film was not effective for salt marsh
protection.
Test results for the surface-collecting
agent were inconclusive. The agent
effectively confined oil under nonturbu-
lent conditions, but waves impinging on
the test area caused the contained oil
slick and chemical barrier to break up into
numerous small oil slicks. Without the
contaminant barrier, the surface-collect-
ing agent may have held the oil offshore
effectively.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are
made based on the findings of this study:
1. Field evaluations should be made of
other potential surface protection
agents identified in the literature
and preliminary tests.
2. A prototype application system
should be designed and tested on an
oil spill of opportunity using polyvinyl
acetate as the surface treatment
agent.
3. Additional testing should be con-
ducted to verify tests for agent
toxicity.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Grant No. R804639 by Woodward-
Clyde Consultants under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Table 3. Ranking* of Film-Forming Agents Evaluated at Sewaren Beach
Ranking
Agent
Polvvinyl acetate
Xanthan gum
Flowing water
No. 6
Fuel Oil
1
3
1
Sand Beach
No. 2
Fuel Oil
1
3
2
Arabian
Crude Oil
1
3
2
No.
Fuel
Short
Term
2
1
3
6
Oil
Long
Term
1
2
3
Marsh
No. 2
Fuel Oil
Short
Term
1
2
3
Long
Term
J
3
2
Arabian
Crude Oil
Short Long
Term Term
2 J
1 2
3 3
* Agents are ranked in order of effectiveness in each test.
-------
Carl R. Foget. Robert I/I/. Castle, Susan Naughton, and James D. Sartor are with
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, CA 94111; Michael Miller and
Philip Dibner are with URS Research Company, San Mateo. CA 94402; and
Donald E. Glowe, Frederick Weber, B. J. Yager, and P. E. Cassidyare with Texas
Research Institute, Inc., Austin, TX 78767.
Leo T. McCarthy, Jr., is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Surface Treatment Agents for Protection of
Shorelines from Oil Spills," (Order No. PB84-177 898; Cost: $ 14.50, subject to
change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE- 1984 — 759-015/7710
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |