CHEMICAL SHORELINE CLEANING AGENTS - EVALUATION OF TWO LABORATORY PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING PERFORMANCE

This report presents data from studies designed to evaluate characteristics of selected bench-scale test methods for estimating cleaning performance of chemical agents for removal of oil from substrate surfaces. uch agents have the potential to be used to remove oil that might strand on shorelines a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J.B. Clayton, Jr., P. Marsden
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: 2004
Subjects:
Online Access:http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimsapi.dispdetail?deid=31613
Description
Summary:This report presents data from studies designed to evaluate characteristics of selected bench-scale test methods for estimating cleaning performance of chemical agents for removal of oil from substrate surfaces. uch agents have the potential to be used to remove oil that might strand on shorelines and cause adverse effects to impacted ecosystems. n order to mitigate the effect of stranded oil with chemical cleaning agents, however, an on-scene coordinator must have information and an understanding of performance of characteristics for available cleaning agents. erformance of candidate cleaning agents can be estimated on the basis of laboratory testing procedures that are designed to evaluate performance of different agents. wo test methods were selected for evaluating performance: nvironment Canada's Inclined Trough test and a Swirling Coupon test developed in this program. ests with each method were performed with two substrates (stainless steel and porcelain tile), two oil types (Prudhoe Bay crude and Bunker C), and three commercial cleaning agents that have potential for use on oiled shorelines (Corexit 9580, Citrikleen XPC, and Corexit 7664). he testing procedures are compared on the basis of (1) determination of the precision of experimental results obtained for multiple test runs with each procedure, (2) costs associated with not only acquisition of necessary equipment but also actual conduct of tests, and (3) a non-quantitative evaluation of the ease of conducting a given test (i.e., how many individual test runs can be performed in a given period of time, the complexity of performing a given testing procedure, the necessary skill level required of an operator, and the cost of equipment for a particular testing procedure).