Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

A review on physical remediation techniques for treatment of marine

oil spills
Abhinav Dhaka, Pradipta Chattopadhyay *
Department of Chemical Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilan, 333031, Rajasthan, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is a huge risk of contamination of water bodies due to the various oil exploration, transport, and industrial
Marine oil spill operational activities that are taking place across the world. Physical remediation techniques are considered
Physical remediation techniques extremely important for tackling the problems of marine oil spills. This paper provides a unique, specific review
Oil spills
on the physical remediation of marine oil spills with special emphasis on types of available physical remediation
Booms
techniques and their working principles. It also describes the chief latest improvements in the physical reme­
Skimmers
Sorbents diation techniques that have taken place with time. The paper discusses the various ways by which oil and its
derivatives contaminate, and the subsequent effects these contaminants have on the marine ecosystem. The
article discusses salient features that make physical remediation an effective marine oil spill counter-measure
capable of recovering appreciable amounts of oil while causing minimal or no damage to the marine
ecosystem and the workers carrying out the cleanup. Regarding the physical remediation methods, future
research may focus on the development of hybrid booms, improved performance of skimmers for different oil
types, and further applications involving novel materials like nanoparticles, zeolites for sorbents.

1. Introduction
An oil spill is the accidental or deliberate release of oil into the
environment whether terrestrial or marine. If the discharge volume is
greater than 100,000 gallons, then the oil spill comes under the major
spill category (Samudro and Mangkoedihardjo, 2012; Walther, 2014).
Several factors contribute to the pollution of the marine environment by
oil and its derivatives; accidents during oil convey, during oil explora­
tion and production activities are the major and most prevalent causes.
However, only a fraction of oil entering the environment is contributed
by accidents (Ivshina et al., 2015). Due to marine oil spills and their
subsequent detrimental effects, apart from the marine ecosystem,
related activities are also highly affected like fishing, tourism, marine
agriculture, and oil industries. Industrial activities entail the risk of oil
spills that can have catastrophic effects on both flora and fauna in the
region. It has been reported that 30–50% of all oil spills are a result of
manual errors, while 20–40% of all spills are a consequence of either
malfunctioning machinery or total equipment failure (Fingas, 2012;
Michel and Fingas, 2016).
Oil spills exert a huge economic burden on the liable companies and
local authorities. For instance, for the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon
was slapped with an exorbitant lawsuit summing to $145 billion (Ven­
tikos et al., 2004; Vlahos and Alexopoulos, 1995). Per barrel cleanup
cost of crude oil spill has added up to an estimated average of $2730
(Davis and Guidry, 1996). Spills in open oceans far away from beaches
and shorelines have a much less economic impact on the ecosystem and
have much fewer cleanup expenses than the spills that have occurred
closer to shorelines and human settlements. It has been reported that the
estimated cost of cleanup of shores is 4–5 times the cleanup expenses of
the oil spill in open seas and 100 times the cost of pumping from a
wrecked vessel (Chang et al., 2014). The cleanup expenses also increase
with increasing spill volume and spill rate. The cost of damages increases
approximately by $718,000 for each percent rise in spill size (Alló and
Loureiro, 2013). Thus, it is always better to either prevent oil spills
wherever possible or act swiftly to mitigate its deleterious impact.
However accidental oil spills can still happen and in those situations, it is
important to apply the available oil spill remediation techniques.
There are several oil remediation techniques that can be employed
for the cleanup of oil from water. The techniques available at present can
be classified into four broad categories- Physical remediation, Chemical
remediation, Biological remediation, Thermal remediation. Physical
remediation techniques include booms, skimmers, and sorbent

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pc333312@gmail.com (P. Chattopadhyay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112428
Received 9 November 2020; Received in revised form 20 February 2021; Accepted 19 March 2021
Available online 7 April 2021
0301-4797/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
materials. Booms contain an oil spill, preventing it from spreading which
is subsequently cleaned by using skimmers and/or sorbents materials or
some other remediation technique. Chemical remediation techniques
use dispersants and solidifiers to clean the oil spill (Dave and Ghaly,
2011). Biological remediation techniques employ microorganisms that
speed up the natural degradation of oil components (Atlas and Cerniglia,
1995; Dave and Ghaly, 2011). In Thermal remediation techniques, the
oil spill contained by booms is simply ignited. Which technique is to be
used depends on several factors that affect the remediation processes
either directly or indirectly. Some of these factors include atmospheric
and oceanic conditions (temperature, the pattern of tidal waves, etc) at
the location of the spill, the volume of the spill, properties of the spilled
oil and the danger posed by this spill to the natural habitat, human
population, sites of economic and heritage importance, etc. (Azevedo
et al., 2014; Fingas, 1995).
Different remediation techniques have been used to handle major
marine oil spills occurring in different parts of the world at various
times. For the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (1989), booms, sorbents,
and bioremediation techniques were utilized for effective remediation
(Al-Majed et al., 2012). For the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill (2010),
booms, skimmers, and chemical remediation techniques were used
(Cleveland et al., 2010). In recent times, the marine oil spill from the
Grande America cargo vessel (2019), near the French coast, was tackled
by the usage of booms (Wright and Braun, 2020).
Very few review papers in the past decade summarize all the avail­
able marine oil spill remediation techniques (Al-Majed et al., 2012; Dave
and Ghaly, 2011; Ivshina et al., 2015; Kumari et al., 2019; Ossai et al.,
2020). Moreover, these papers do not provide a comprehensive account
of a particular remediation method, the detrimental effects of oil spills
on the marine ecosystem, or both together. Most of the past reviews over
the last decade are generally focused on the biological remediation
techniques which address the recent advancements in oil recovery by
microbes, improvements in biotechnical solutions for the remediation of
marine oil spills, and the increased interest in biological remediation
methods for the cleanup of oil spills (Davoodi et al., 2020; Doshi et al.,
2018; Logeshwaran et al., 2018; Mapelli et al., 2017; Mercer and Tre­
vors, 2011). Also, a very less number of review papers report the
physical remediation techniques of marine oil spill as the central theme.
Hence, in this paper, the sole focus is on the physical remediation
methods together with the harmful effects the oil spills exert on the
marine ecosystem. This review embodies the chief ways by which oil
spills can take place, the subsequent changes that this oil spill
undergoes-the weathering mechanisms. The selection of an appropriate
remediation technique is a must to mitigate the detrimental effects of an
oil spill which is a function of numerous properties of the spill. The
physical remediation methods have been discussed as the central theme
of this paper due to numerous reasons. Firstly, they are mature
techniques-they have been used for a long time. The biological reme­
diation techniques, which are very recently developed, will have to
traverse a long way to become an effective replacement of these age-old
techniques. Secondly, in contrast to chemical and thermal remediation
techniques for the remediation of oil spills, physical remediation
methods exert little or no negative effects. A comprehensive review of
the various physical remediation techniques along with an analysis of
various factors, conditions that may reduce the effectiveness of these
physical methods has been presented in this paper. This review also
describes the changes in the design of physical remediation techniques
like booms and skimmers that have been developed to address their
shortcomings. Also, there has been a recent increase in the use of sorbent
materials as a physical remediation technique. The various technolog­
ical advancements that have been made which have resulted in
improved characteristics of sorbent materials and the discovery of novel
materials like zeolites, aerogels, etc that can potentially replace the
existing sorbent materials have been also presented in this paper.
2
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
2. Changes in the characteristics of spilled oil: weathering
Subsequent spreading of crude oil on the water surface leads to the
formation of a thin oil layer which is referred to as an oil slick. As soon as
oil is released in a marine environment, it will instantly start to undergo
a number of physical, chemical, and biological changes (Amro, 2004;
Walther, 2014; Whiteside, 1993). These changes include spreading,
evaporation, dissolution, dispersion, absorption, sedimentation, emul­
sification with water, photo-oxidation, degradation by microbes
(Annunciado et al., 2005; Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Jordan and Payne,
1980; Mishra and Kumar, 2015). All these weathering processes are
intricate, compete with each other, and occur simultaneously (Mishra
and Kumar, 2015). The domination of the specific weathering process
depends on the natural conditions at the spill site and the properties of
the spilled oil (Kapoor and Rawat, 1994). Table 1 shows the effects of
weathering processes for marine oil spills and factors assisting these
processes. The spreading of oil slick depends on the viscosity of the oil,
the wind, and wave speed at the site of the oil spill (Elliott, 1986). A
major fraction of light oils evaporate as they are mainly constituted of
low molecular weight and highly volatile substances, leaving heavier
molecular weight components which lead to increased viscosity, density
of oil slick. In contrast, heavy and intermediate oils are affected to a
much less extent by evaporation as they are made of non-volatile ma­
terials with high molecular weights. As a result, the oil slick left (res­
idue) is made majorly by non-volatile substances which have an
increased density, viscosity, and ability to emulsify with water (Asad­
pour et al., 2013; Díez et al., 2007; Hussein et al., 2009). Dispersion is
the fragmentation of oil slick into droplets of varying sizes. The rate of
dispersion increases with decreased oil viscosity and with an increase in
atmospheric and oceanic turbulence (Delvigne and Sweeney, 1988;
Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010; Tkalich and Chan, 2002). The process
of dispersion is both a boon and bane as it enhances biodegradation, thus
reducing the harmful impact oil slicks can have on birds and other
surface-dwelling fauna. However, it leads to an increased concentration
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds in the water
column which is highly toxic for the organisms residing in seas
(Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010; Schein et al., 2009). Dissolution is the
mechanism by which components of oil stick dissolve into water. It
doesn’t remove any appreciable amount of oil slick as most soluble
components preferentially evaporate at a rate 100 times faster than their
rate of dissolution (Parker and Pitt, 2012). The emulsion formation of oil
with water increases the viscosity of the slick (Reed et al., 1999) and its
volume to three to four folds the initial spilled volume which makes the
cleaning arduous and cumbersome. Similarly, the oxidation process
makes cleaning cumbersome (ITOPF, 2018a). Also, the photo-oxidized
products formed like anthracene, phenanthrene, pyrene, etc are much
more toxic than the parent hydrocarbons comprising the oil and most of
these oxygenated products are potential carcinogens (Lee, 2003;
Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010). Together these processes result in the
formation of mousse (oil in water emulsion), tar balls (due to emulsifi­
cation), and numerous oxygenated (due to photo-oxidation) products
like aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, etc which further increase the
difficulties associated with oil recovery operations (Dave and Ghaly,
2011). However, due to photo-oxidation, there is a decrease in the
volume of oil slick by 1% each day (Butt et al., 1986). Rate of degra­
dation due to photo-oxidation decreases with increasing density. Sedi­
mentation is the total of various weathering mechanisms that cause the
oil to become denser than water and subsequently sink. Evaporation of
light components, the coalescence of dense particles can cause sedi­
mentation. The effect and fate of sediment particles are akin to dispersed
and dissolved particles (Robotham and Gill, 1989). Biodegradation is
the process by which microorganisms converts the components of oil
into carbon dioxide and water. However, heavy aromatics and asphal­
tenes are either resistant or degrade at a very slow rate. Increased levels
of nitrogen and phosphorus, increased salinity, increased availability of
oxygen can increase the rate of biodegradation (Brown, 1989). The rate
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Effects of weathering processes for marine oil spills and factors assisting these Weathering Assisting factors Effects References
processes. Processes for the
Weathering Assisting factors Effects References weathering
Processes for the processes
weathering but are highly
processes poisonous.
Spreading • Less viscous • Speeding of an oil (Annunciado Sedimentation • Increased rate • Enhances the Robotham and
spread quickly slick over a larger et al., 2005; Dave of evaporation biodegradation, Gill (1989)
• Rough oceanic area. and Ghaly, 2011; and dissolution of dissolution thus
and atmospheric • Assists all the Elliott, 1986) low molecular reducing the harmful
conditions weathering variables weight impact oil slicks can
• High components have on birds and
temperature • Shallow water other surface-
Evaporation • Highly volatile • Mass of oil spilled is (Asadpour et al., containing dwelling fauna
components will reduced 2013; Díez et al., suspended solids, • Increases the
easily evaporate • Residue left is 2007; Hussein sand, and concentration of
• Low molecular majorly non-volatile et al., 2009; sediments hydrocarbons in
weight substances having Sebastião and water column which
components will increased density, Guedes Soares, can be harmful
easily evaporate viscosity and ability 1998) Biodegradation • Increased levels • Microbes degrade (Atlas and Hazen,
• Rough oceanic to emulsify with of nutrients such the oil slick into 2011; Brown,
and atmospheric water as nitrogen and harmless components 1989; Mercer and
conditions • Evaporated vapors phosphorus in the like microbial cells, Trevors, 2011;
• High can pollute the water carbon dioxide, and Swannell et al.,
temperature environment • Increased water 1996; Venosa and
Emulsification • Rough oceanic • Increase the (Dave and Ghaly, salinity, pH, and • Heavy aromatics Zhu, 2003; Wang
and atmospheric viscosity of slick and 2011; Sebastião temperature and asphaltenes are et al., 1998)
conditions its volume to three- and Guedes • Increased level either resistant or
• Low molecular four folds the initial Soares, 1998) of oxygen present degrade at a very
weight spilled volume slow rate.
components will making the cleaning
easily emulsify difficult
• Low • Causes formation of of weathering depends on oceanic and atmospheric conditions at the
temperature mousse and tar balls spill site, temperature, amount of sunlight at the spill site, amount of
making the cleaning microbes present that can breakdown this oil at the spill site (Daling and
difficult
• Hinders
StrØm, 1999; Xhelilaj and Sinanaj, 2010). Due to these weathering ef­
evaporation, fects, slick properties-density and viscosity of oil slick being the two
degradation, and most important, differ widely from the initial oil. After considering all
dissolution the above factors, a proper oil spill remediation response is undertaken
Dispersion • Decreased oil • Enhances the (Delvigne and
(Buist et al., 1999; Lessard and DeMarco, 2000).
viscosity biodegradation, Sweeney, 1988;
• Increase in dissolution, Reed et al., 1999;
atmospheric and sedimentation thus Rogowska and 3. Causes of oil spills in the marine environment
oceanic reducing the harmful Namieśnik, 2010;
turbulence impact oil slicks can Schein et al., Causes of oil spills may be classified under two broad general cate­
have on birds and 2009; Tkalich
other surface- and Chan, 2002)
gories namely, natural causes and anthropogenic causes. One of the
dwelling fauna most common natural causes is the seepage of oil from the beds of
• Increased oceans and seas or discharges from oil yielding rocks at the ocean bed
concentration of into the marine ecosystem. Anthropogenic causes can be further classi­
Polycyclic Aromatic
fied into two categories: accidental oil spills and intentional oil spills.
Hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds in water Accidental spills may be due to the wreckage of vessels (grounding,
column which is very collision) carrying oils which can release millions of gallons of oil into
highly toxic for the the marine environment (Korotenko et al., 2010). Exxon Valdez spill of
organisms residing in March 1989 is a notable example of this kind of accidental oil spill
seas
Photo- • Sunlight • Makes cleaning (Lee, 2003;
(Bragg et al., 1994; Neff et al., 1995). Accidents at offshore oil rigs also
oxidation initiates the cumbersome Rogowska and come under this category, explosion at the Deep Water Horizon oil rig is
process • Photo-oxidized Namieśnik, 2010; a notable example (Brody et al., 2012). Accidents during handling and
• Increasing products formed are Tarr et al., 2016) storage of crude oil and its derivatives also come under this category.
density much more toxic
Operational release resulting from routine maintenance and cleaning of
than the parent
hydrocarbons vessels, ballasting, also results in the release of oil into marine ecosys­
comprising the oil tems (Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010). The intentional release of oil
and most of these into marine systems includes the release of untreated effluents to save
potential carcinogens money, from various industries, fuel oils from service centers, illegal
Dissolution • Increased • Doesn’t remove any (Parker and Pitt,
spreading appreciable amount 2012; Tarr et al.,
bilge water discharges, acts of war, etc directly into water bodies which
• Increased water of oil slick as most 2016) ultimately reaches the seas and oceans (Lucas and Macgregor, 2006;
temperature soluble components Vlaev et al., 2011). The Gulf War of 1990–1991 led to the release of
• Increased prefer to evaporate about 10 million barrels of oil into the Arabian Gulf which caused
turbulence and • Generally, lighter
widespread destruction of the ecosystem of the Arabian Gulf (Al-Ham­
degree of aromatics dissolve
dispersion madi et al., 1995; Tawfiq and Olsen, 1993).

3
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
4. Impacts of marine oil spill
Marine oil spills cause widespread damage to the marine ecosystem.
Its effects can be either acute (toxic effects of oil on organisms can be
observed after short-term exposure to high concentrations of toxic oil
components) or chronic (toxic effects are observable after an extended
period of exposure to relatively small concentrations). Table 2 depicts
the effects of marine oil spills on associated organisms/industries/
different sectors. The extent to which biota is affected is a function of
numerous variables like spill volume, spill type, location of the spill,
environmental conditions or sensitivity at the spill site, the rate at which
oil slick is spreading, and the response techniques undertaken (Azizian
and Khosravi, 2019). The effect of spilled oil on the marine ecosystem
can be observed even after many years depending on the properties of oil
and the type of ecosystem that is present at the site of the spill (Tansel,
2013). For instance, marshy and swampy environments can recover in
2–10 years (Carpenter, 2019; Kingston, 2002). Since most of the spilled
oil remains afloat on the water surface, it directly impacts
surface-dwelling birds, other marine plants, and animals by smothering
them. This oil slick can be harmful to terrestrial animals and humans as
well if it reaches seashores as a result of spreading owing to various
environmental forces (Brody et al., 2012). Some of the components of
the oil spill are highly toxic and can be detrimental for planktons, corals,
other organisms dwelling on the seabed.
5. Physical remediation techniques of oil spill
This forms a class of one of the most efficient and environmentally
friendly methods of oil spill remediation. Physical methods do not use
any chemical compound and hence there is no prior permission required
from governmental agencies to carry out the cleanup operations. Out of
these methods, sorbents, oil booms, and skimmer, which are most
popularly used for marine oil spill remediation, will be discussed
extensively in this paper. The chief benefits and drawbacks of booms,
skimmers, and sorbents are depicted in Table 3 and the latest de­
velopments in these physical remediation methods for marine oil spills
are described in Table 4.
5.1. Booms
Oil is generally less dense than water and will spread over the surface
of the water. To prevent this spread of oil, stationary floating devices
called booms are employed. The utilization of booms for containing
spreading oil is a primary sea-response strategy that many governments
around the world have adopted (ITOPF, 2018a). If not confined, due to
spreading, oil slick may reach the biologically and culturally sensitive
regions, shorelines, estuaries, subsequently inflicting serious destruction
(Clark, 1989; Fay, 1971; Lewis and Aurand, 1997; Obi et al., 2014;
Tkalich et al., 2003). Booms are physical barriers that prevent the
spreading of the oil slick. They confine the oil and maintain an adequate
thickness of oil which is necessary to carry out further remediation
operations (Mapelli et al., 2017). The primary function of booms is to
contain the oil from spreading any further. But in some situations, they
are also used to deflect the oil slick from reaching shorelines, or any
region where it is very difficult and costly to clean up, or from biodi­
versity hotspots, thus protecting them. This confined oil can now be
cleaned up by the use of skimmers, sorbents, or can be subjected to any
other remediation technique (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Fingas, 2018;
Kumari et al., 2019).
A typical boom consists of three parts-free-board, skirt, and cables.
Free-board floats above the water surface-its function is to ensure that
no oil overflows over the top of the boom; skirt, which lies below the
water surface, prevents escaping of oil slick from under the boom and
cables that hold the sections of boom together. Booms come in a variety
of shapes and sizes. Small, lightweight booms are generally used for the
containment of small volumes of an oil spill and are manually
4
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
deployable. Very large open sea booms are used for containing a large
volume of the spill at sea/ocean and require large cranes, ancillaries for
their handling. Based on the design, booms are classified into two broad
categories, based on their floating tendencies, the material constituting
the booms, weight of booms, and their ability to stop the flow of oil slick.
These are namely, fence booms and curtain booms (Kumari et al., 2019;
Ndimele, 2017; Potter, 2004; Tewari and Sirvaiya, 2015).
5.1.1. Fence boom
Fence booms resemble a floating fence and are composed of rigid or
semi-rigid materials. It acts like a vertical barrier such that generally
60% of its height is below the water surface and the remaining above it
(Dave and Ghaly, 2011). Multiple boom sections, each of length 15 m
and 0.3, 0.6 or 0.8 m in height, are connected together to form a U or
V-shaped frontier around the oil spill (ITOPF, 2018a). Fence booms are
light in weight, require minimum space for storage, are
abrasion-resistant, and are easy to maintain and clean. They are highly
efficient means of containing oil spills but they can only be used in the
case of calm seas and surroundings. They are not able to withstand
strong wind, water currents, have no towing flexibility. Also, they
exhibit poor efficiency in the presence of high waves and tides (Dave and
Ghaly, 2011; Potter, 2004; Ventikos et al., 2004).
5.1.2. Curtain booms
Curtain booms are composed of circular foam-filled chambers (free-
board) that remain over the water surface and have a flexible skirt that
remains submerged underwater. Polyurethane, polystyrene, and cork
are generally used materials for making curtain booms. The foam-filled
chambers have diameters ranging from 100 to 500 mm and skirt lengths
ranging from 150 to 800 mm. Curtain booms like fence booms are
reliable only in calm atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Curtain
booms unlike fence booms offer the advantage of high towing flexibility.
They exhibit better performance than fence booms, but their cleaning
and storage are difficult (Hoel et al., 2011; Ndimele, 2017; Ventikos
et al., 2004).
Irrespective of the type of boom, its performance is greatly affected
by the conditions existing at the sea. Booms should have adequate
flexibility as well as rigidity so that they can keep up with the wave
motion and still be able to retain as much oil as possible. Booms become
less effective under the aggravation of the following conditions: (a) the
height of surface waves (b) wind condition, existing at the location of the
oil spill.
5.2. Factors governing boom performance
The operation and performance of a boom are dependent on three
physical factors namely buoyancy, roll response, and heave response
(Amini, 2007; Schultz, 1998). The force of buoyancy on the boom is an
important factor in the effectiveness of the boom. Buoyancy helps the
boom to float on the water surface, which in turn ensures that the
freeboard of the boom remains above the surface of the water (Amini,
2007; Schultz, 1998). Oceanic waves and currents also exert a torque on
the skirt-impervious barrier below the water’s surface which causes
rotation of the skirt. If there is an excessive deflection of the skirt from a
vertical orientation, it can result in oil loss from below the boom.
Excessive deflection or roll can occur if along the skirt the ballast weight
is not enough, the position of the primary tension member is very near to
the waterline or atmosphere and oceanic conditions at the site of the
spill are very rough. Roll response is the measure of torque required to
rotate the boom from its vertical position. The higher it is, the more
effectively the boom will prevent the oil slick from entraining. To in­
crease it, ballast weight under the skirt of booms should be increased or
it can also be achieved by shifting the float area from the centerline of
the boom. Shifting of float area away from the centerline drastically
improves roll response, as it is proportional to the area at the waterline
multiplied with the square of the distance of the center of gravity. It can
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 2
Effects of marine oil spills on associated organisms/industry/different sectors.
Oil spill effects Associated organisms/ Effects of marine oil spill on associated organisms/industry/ References
industry/different sectors different sectors

On Marine Planktons •Most affected marine organisms owing to their poor locomotive (Cohen et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2015; Jiang et al.,
Biodiversity ability. 2010; Michel and Fingas, 2016)
•Accumulation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAHs) in them
and subsequent risk of biomagnifications as they are the starting end
of food chain.
•Effects of assimilation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHs) are
manifested as increased mortality, disruption in normal egg-laying
and hatching cycles, and suffer major abnormalities in development
and reproduction.
•Sub-lethal effects on zooplankton are manifested as narcosis,
reduction in appetite, and disruption in normal eating habits and
normal responses to light.
Benthos (Crustaceans, •Sessile organisms are severely impacted by oil spills and their (Hook et al., 2014; Michel and Fingas, 2016; Yuewen and
Molluscs, Echinoderms) aftermath compared to mobile ones. Adzigbli, 2018)
•Increased concentration of heavy oil sediments in water column
and ocean bed results in increased mortality.
•Sub-lethal effects include stunted growth, disruption in molting and
hormonal cycles, deformities in body parts and organs, differential
growth, and mutations in RNA.
•Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHs) affect the normal physiological and
behavioral functions of a number of Crustaceans, Echinoderms, and
Gastropods thereby disturbing their important role in marine
ecosystem.
•Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHs) assimilated in them are
subsequently biomagnified as benthos are source of food for many
mammals.
Fish •Pelagic and demersal fish are exposed to high Polycyclic Aromatic (Blackburn et al., 2014; Hicken et al., 2011; Incardona
Hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations in water column. et al., 2004; Langangen et al., 2017; Michel and Fingas,
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) bring about 2016; Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010)
morphological impairment and mutation in eggs, embryos, and
larvae severely impacting their growth and development.
•Assimilation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHs) causes tainting in
fish rendering them unsuitable for consumption by predators.
•Oil spill severely destructs the natural habitats, spawning, and
breeding grounds.
•Oil tarnishes the anatomy of gill by blocking it, erodes fins, affects
the swimming ability, and brings about a number of biochemical
changes at cellular level.
Aquatic birds •Oil ensnares the feathers thereby altering the microstructure of (Balseiro et al., 2005; Leighton, 1993; O’Hara and
wings, leading to compressed plumage resulting in reduced flight Morandin, 2010; Rogowska and Namieśnik, 2010; Troisi
and buoyancy. et al., 2007; Yuewen and Adzigbli, 2018)
•It also impacts the insulating ability of feathers allowing contact
between skin and water which leads to hypothermia and subsequent
death especially in cold regions and during cold weathers.
•Oil upon entering the body can cause severe damage to internal
organs and endocrine glands. It also causes gastrointestinal
disorders, immunotoxicity, haemolytic anaemia, cachexia, and
aspergillosis.
•Eggs when exposed to even small amount of oil can kill a large
number of embryos.
Mammals •Furs of otter, polar bear, seal, etc are soiled in oil slick which leads (Michel and Fingas, 2016; Neff, 1988; Yuewen and
to poor insulation and decreased water repealing ability, and hence Adzigbli, 2018)
these animals are at risk of hypothermia. Waterproofing and
buoyant features are lost due to oiling of fur of these animals, thus
risking drowning. These animals also ingest toxic oil components
while grooming their fur, which further aggravates their health
condition.
•Animals like dolphins, whales and, turtles that come to sea surface
to breathe are at risk of ingesting oil and its volatile components
which can cause respiratory irritation, inflammation, emphysema/
pneumonia, gastrointestinal inflammation, ulcers, bleeding,
diarrhoea, etc.
•Accumulation of volatile oil components transferred from
bloodstream into brain can cause neurological disorders.
On Human Direct effects •Cleanup personnel, communities, and settlements in coastal areas (Aguilera et al., 2010; Laffon et al., 2016;
Society are at serious risk of health problems owing to toxic oil components. Rodríguez-Trigo et al., 2007; Zock et al., 2014)
•Cleanup personnel and workers can suffer from physical trauma
during cleanup operations. Liquid oil on contacting skin can cause
dermal issues (itching, lesions, etc).
•Short term exposure to Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHs), Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs) can cause Respiratory (Asthma, wheezy breath, shortness of
breath, etc), Ocular (irritation, redness, dryness, etc), and
(continued on next page)

5
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 2 (continued )
Oil spill effects Associated organisms/ Effects of marine oil spill on associated organisms/industry/ References
industry/different sectors different sectors

Neurological (headache, nauseating and dizzy feeling, etc) ailments.

•Long-term exposure causes chromosome lesions, aberrations, and
damage to the structure of chromosomes which can lead to increased
risk of haematological cancer.
•Studies have shown that long-term exposure to oil components also
perturbs the normal functioning of immune and endocrine systems.
Indirect effects •Burning off oil spill via thermal remediation produces smoke and a (Chang et al., 2014; Laffon et al., 2016; Rodin et al.,
number of toxic by-products that are very harmful and lead to a 1992)
number of Respiratory (Asthma, wheezy breath, shortness of breath,
etc), Ocular (irritation, redness, dryness, etc), and Neurological
(headache, nauseating and dizzy feeling, etc) ailments.
•Studies carried out on humans exposed to oil spills have shown that
they suffer from mental health ailments (Anxiety, Depression).
However, it depends on the characteristics of oil spill, age group of
affected people, and the financial support received from
governmental authorities amongst many other factors.
•Consumption of tainted seafood, drinking contaminated water can
cause serious damage to internal organs.
•Studies have found that oil spills have also resulted in increased
psychological stress, increased consumption of alcohol and drugs,
increased number of complaints of domestic violence, increased
cases of flouting law and order.
On Economic Marine food industry •Oil spills may overwhelm the regions/area of seas and oceans (Goodlad, 1996; ITOPF, 2018d; Moncrieff and H.
activities (Commercial fisheries and where these industries are situated thereby resulting in increased Simpson, 1993)
aquaculture) mortality rates, loss of breeding and spawning grounds, and habitat
destruction. This can also lead to closure, sealing off, and banning
businesses in these areas indefinitely by authorities which further
affecting the industries.
•Cleanup operations may further aggravate the damage already
borne by marine flora and fauna.
•The demand for seafood from these regions slump down owing to
the fear of tainting and contamination of marine habitats by toxic oil
components.
•Above factors also lead to disruption of supply chain thereby
affecting transportation, port, and many other intermediate
businesses.
•Thus a result many industries take a significant financial hit and
livelihoods of a large number of people are affected.
•Oil spill attracts media which further taints the image of these
businesses worsening their economic situation and making it
difficult for them to return to normality even years after complete oil
removal.
Sea-based transportation •Oil may float into ports and harbors risking the oiling of hull, (ITOPF, 2018e)
and related industries mooring lines, and berths of moored vessels. These structures have
to be immediately cleaned as oil can damage them (requires hiring of
costly cleaning companies) and also they can become a source of
secondary pollution. Cleaning agents, high-pressure hot water used
for cleaning may further pollute the environment.
•Cleaning operations lead to grounding of vessels (for which
increased demurrage cost is to be paid) which subsequently disrupts
the supply chain and all the dependent businesses, industries.
•Oil spills may force the closure of waterways thereby affecting the
movement of vessels of economic and strategic importance.
•Industrial operations requiring water from seas and oceans are
affected. Shipbuilding, construction projects, research works are
also put on hold.
Tourism industries •Oil spills near coastal regions can inflict damage to seashores, (Cirer-Costa, 2015; ITOPF, 2018e; Moncrieff and H.
beaches, gulf, delta, and estuaries. Simpson, 1993)
•Resorts, hotels, restaurants, other waterfront businesses, and
recreational activities (swimming, boating, seaplane rides,
snorkelling, angling, and diving) incur huge economic losses owing
to the closure, sealing off, and banning of businesses, activities in
these areas indefinitely by authorities to clean oil spill.
•Other than above mentioned businesses, hospitality, tour,
transport, and other related industries also take a huge financial hit.
•Oil spill attracts media which further taints the image of these
businesses worsening their economic situation and making it
difficult for them to return to normality even years after complete oil
removal.

be further improved by placing the tension cables lower on the skirt, water. It is the ability of the boom to follow the water surface as the
which restricts the motion of boom resulting from the forces exerted by wave passes. A boom with a bad heave response is not able to follow the
wind, sea waves, and currents (Amini, 2007; Schultz, 1998). Heave water surface and gets submerged under the water surface as the wave
response is the ability of booms to withstand the vertical motion of passes, which results in the spreading of the oil slick. Heave response

6
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Benefits and drawbacks of different classes of physical remediation methods for Classes of Benefits Drawbacks References
marine oil spills-booms, skimmers, and sorbents. Physical
Classes of Benefits Drawbacks References Remediation
Physical Methods-
Remediation Booms/
Methods- Skimmers/
Booms/ Sorbents
Skimmers/ viscosity lying labor, mechanical (Dave and Ghaly,
Sorbents between 100 and machinery and are 2011; ITOPF,
Fence Booms Light in weight Unable to (Hoang et al., 2018; 2000 cSt expensive and 2018b)
withstand strong Michel and Fingas, complex
wind and water 2016; Ventikos Suction Very effective for Not suitable if oil (Dave and Ghaly,
currents et al., 2004) Skimmers a wide range of spill has 2011; Ventikos
Require Can withstand (Cormack, 1999; oil viscosities. inflammable et al., 2004)
minimum storage wind speed up to Dave and Ghaly, components as
space hence are 20 knots, ocean 2011; Hoang et al., there is a chance of
easy to clean and currents of up to 2018; Ivshina et al., explosion
maintain 1.5 knots, and a 2015) Greater oil Takes a lot of ITOPF (2018b)
maximum wave separation can be water, etc. Even
height of 1.5 m achieved if small disturbances
Resistant to Poor or no towing (Dave and Ghaly, suction skimmers by surface waves
abrasion flexibility 2011; Hoang et al., are used in result in the
2018) conjugation with ingression of large
Suitable to use in Towing speed is Ivshina et al. (2015) Weir skimmers amount of water
any kind of oil limited to 0.7–1 and debris
spill knot which strains Recovery Intensive Dave and Ghaly
the towing vessel efficiency of requirement of (2011)
Relatively Intensive (Dave and Ghaly, spilled oil can labor, mechanical
cheaper requirement of 2011; ITOPF, reach 90% machinery and are
labor and 2018a) expensive and
mechanical complex
machinery Can collect oil Debris limits the Ivshina et al. (2015)
Curtain Booms Abrasion- Difficult to store (Hoang et al., 2018; residues performance
resistant Hoel et al., 2011) efficiently
High towing Difficult to (Hoang et al., 2018; Weir Skimmers Best for oils that Not suitable if oil (Dave and Ghaly,
flexibility maintain and clean Hoel et al., 2011) have low spill emulsifies 2011; ITOPF,
compared to viscosity, low 2018b; Jensen
fence booms density, and are et al., 1995)
Better than fence Can withstand (Cormack, 1999; non-emulsive.
booms in rough wind speed unto 20 Hoang et al., 2018; Oil selectively Presence of debris (Dave and Ghaly,
water knots, ocean ITOPF, 2018a; recovered with drastically reduces 2011; Ivshina et al.,
currents of 1.5 Ivshina et al., 2015) minimal amount collecting 2015; Jensen et al.,
knots, and a of water efficiency by 1995;
maximum wave entrainment jamming and Sivashanmugam,
height of 1.5 m High efficiency clogging it. Also 2007)
Can be used to Intensive Dave and Ghaly even in rough ineffective in steep
contain any kind requirement of (2011) atmospheric and waves
of oil labor and oceanic
mechanical conditions
machinery Recovery Intensive Dave and Ghaly
Fair ability to Towing speed is Ivshina et al. (2015) efficiency can requirement of (2011)
follow waves and limited to 0.7–1 reach up to 90% labor and
currents knot which strains mechanical
the towing vessel machinery.
Special booms: Helpful in special Expensive due to (Dave and Ghaly, Expensive
ice booms, conditions specialized use. 2011; ITOPF, Natural/ Generally Limited reusability, (Al-Jammal and
fire booms, 2018a) Organic industrial and Low sorption Yuzakova, 2016;
shore-seal Can be used to Poor efficiency in (Dave and Ghaly, sorbent agricultural capacity, poor Azizian and
booms contain any kind the presence of 2011; ITOPF, materials wastes- hence hydrophobicity, Khosravi, 2019;
of oil high waves and 2018a) biodegradable poor buoyant Karakasi and
tides and non-toxic properties Moutsatsou, 2010;
Intensive labor and Tsocalis et al., 1992;
machinery Ventikos et al.,
required 2004)
Oleophilic Clean up Not useful in (Dave and Ghaly, Very low costing Application, (Al-Jammal and
Skimmers effectively even recovering oil from 2011; Ivshina et al., or are available performance is Yuzakova, 2016;
in presence of oil-water emulsion, 2015; Nomack and free of cost dependent on the Azizian and
floating debris, oil that is Cleveland, 2010) oceanic and Khosravi, 2019;
ice, and rough sea contaminated by atmospheric Sun, 2010)
conditions dispersants conditions
Recovery Debris affects the Dave and Ghaly Can adsorb 3–15 Application and (Dave and Ghaly,
efficiency is very effectiveness but (2011) times their collection is labor- 2011; Ivshina et al.,
high and can not much weight intensive 2015; Sun, 2010;
reach up to 95% Tewari and
Most effective for Intensive Sirvaiya, 2015)
oils having requirement of Can be used for a Inflammable, non- (Azizian and
wide range of oils resistant towards Khosravi, 2019;
(continued on next page)

7
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 3 (continued ) Table 4

Classes of Benefits Drawbacks References
Latest developments in physical remediation methods for marine oil spills.
Physical Physical Modification/addition/ Outcomes of References
Remediation remediation latest improvements modification/
Methods- methods improvements
Booms/
Skimmers/ Booms •Hybrid boom has been •Overall cleanup (Abdel-Naby, 2018;
Sorbents developed that can becomes more Warner et al., 2017)
simultaneously carry out efficient.
acidic and basic Bandura et al., confinement and •Boom no longer
substances 2017) skimming operations. remains a mere
Mineral/ High surface area Non- Azizian and passive
Natural for sorption, biodegradable, Khosravi (2019) confinement
inorganic mechanically and poor reusability, device- it actively
sorbent chemically expensive than helps in the
materials stable, natural, and some removal of oil.
inexpensive synthetic sorbents •Less time,
Non-inflammable Application, (Azizian and workforce, and
and are resistant performance is Khosravi, 2019; resources are
towards acidic dependent on the Bandura et al., consumed.
and basic oceanic and 2017) •Hybrid boom (adsorbent •Oil confining Davoodi et al. (2020)
substances atmospheric boom) has been capacity of the
conditions developed in which the boom is improved.
Can absorb oil Application and (Dave and Ghaly, surface of the boom is •Effect of different
weights about collection is labor- 2011; Ivshina et al., either made or coated boom failure
4–20 times their intensive 2015; Sun, 2010; with oleophilic materials. mechanisms is
weight Tewari and reduced.
Sirvaiya, 2015) •Cleanup
Can be used for a Pose serious health Dave and Ghaly operations become
wide range of oils risks to humans if (2011) more productive.
inhaled •Boom no longer
Synthetic Enhanced Non-biodegradable (Al-Jammal and remains a mere
sorbent hydrophobic and nature Yuzakova, 2016; passive
materials oleophilic Azizian and confinement
abilities. Highly Khosravi, 2019; device; it actively
buoyant and Choi and Cloud, helps in the
don’t readily sink 1992; Dave and removal of oil.
in water Ghaly, 2011; Idris •Electromagnetic booms •Manifold (Davoodi et al.,
et al., 2013) containing solenoids have increase in the 2020; Warner et al.,
Can take up oil Application, (Dave and Ghaly, been developed that efficiency of 2017)
weights 70–100 performance is 2011; Jarre et al., attract oil particles in booms to confine
times their dependent on the 1979) which minute magnetic oil.
weight oceanic and particles have been •Can remove oil
atmospheric dispersed. Thereafter this and its
conditions oil can also be directed components that
Reusable several Application and (Dave and Ghaly, into collecting vessels by have submerged in
times collection is labor- 2011; Ivshina et al., altering the direction and the water column.
intensive 2015) strength of the magnetic •Less time,
Can be used for a Pose disposal and (Choi and Cloud, field (same can be done workforce, and
wide range of oils storage problems- 1992; Dave and for skimmers). resources are
hence can harm the Ghaly, 2011) consumed.
environment •Cleanup
operations become
more productive.
depends on the water plane area and is directly proportional to it. The •Boom no longer
buoyant force on the boom and the weight of booms are indicators of the remains a mere
passive
heave response of water. Heave response increases as boom weight de­
confinement
creases and buoyant force on boom increases. For a boom to effectively device- it actively
prevent the spread of oil slick due to wave motion, either it should have helps in the
an adequate length of freeboard or a good heave response. Booms with removal of oil.
good heave response are more efficient in containing oils than booms •Introduction of water •Helps in cooling (Elastec,)
circulating system in fire- down the boom
with adequate freeboard length. Boom with good flexibility or good resistant boom used for that reaches very
heave response follows the sea surface more efficiently. Shortening the In-Situ Burning. high temperatures
length of float sections and reducing the spacing between float sections during In-Situ
can improve the flexibility of booms. Pellets of foam in the inflated Burning operation.
•The life period of
flotation chamber also enhance the flexibility of booms that easily
boom is drastically
follow wave motion and prevent the spreading of oil slicks due to the improved- it can
vertical motion of water (Amini, 2007; Schultz, 1998). now be used for
longer durations.
•PVC/TPU coating on the •Coating improves Justin and Sokovic
5.3. Types of boom failure surface of the boom the abrasion (2011)
strength making it
highly resistant to
The various types of boom failure are summarized in this section. To the oil components
make booms more effective, changes should be made in the design of and UV radiations.
booms which can result in minimizing the loss of confined oil due to the (continued on next page)
following failures (Amini, 2007; ITOPF, 2018a).

8
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 4 (continued ) Table 4 (continued )

Physical Modification/addition/ Outcomes of References Physical Modification/addition/ Outcomes of References
remediation latest improvements modification/ remediation latest improvements modification/
methods improvements methods improvements

•Company DESMI has •The boom can be (DESMI,) and the lip of the weir will facilitates oil
developed an safely burned after sink lower and vice versa. removal with
environmentally friendly use, there is no minimum intake
fence boom that can be need to clean (a of water.
burned after use. challenging •Specialized skimmers •Highly capable to (LamorCorporation,)
process) it and have been developed by handle icy cold oil LamorCorporation,
store it for reuse. different companies to with ice fragments n.d.-a)
Skimmers •V-patterned or groovy •It drastically Broje and Keller recover oil in icy in it.
surface of drum oleophilic increases the (2006) conditions. They are •Hot water
skimmers is obtained by contact area equipped with ice injection system
coating nano and between skimmer crushers and mechanisms prevents the oil
microparticles that are surface and oil that inject hot water. from freezing in
superhydrophobic and thereby increasing the skimmer
superoleophilic. the oil uptake. thereby rendering
•Coating these the skimmer
novel materials useless.
minimizes the •Ice crusher
uptake of water system pulverizes
and drastically the ice fragments
improves oil so that they don’t
uptake. clog the skimmer.
•More amount of •Company DESMI has •Combination of (DESMI, n,)
oil can be removed developed a skimmer that belt and brush
for the same uses a bi-directional belt drastically
working condition system combined with a improves the
as compared to rigid brush system. amount of oil
smooth, removed.
conventional •Bi-directional
surface drum belts allow the
skimmer. removal of almost
•Less time, all oil types
workforce, and ranging from
resources are lighter to heavy
consumed oil.
•Oleophilic skimmer in •Oil and its Abdel-Naby and Sorbents •Incorporation of •Oil uptake (Doshi et al., 2018;
conjugation with two components that Hammoud (2018) nanoparticles in sorbent significantly Fouad et al., 2016;
forced streams of air at an have submerged in materials. For instance, increases. Khosravi and
angle with each other. the water column cotton fiber with attached •Facilitates the Azizian, 2017)
One stream is from below can also be silica nanoparticles and recovery of used
the water surface (lifts the removed. octadecyltrichlorosilane sorbent materials.
submerged oil particles) •Improved speed on its surface; coating •Can be used
another is along the sea and oil uptake by Kapok fibers with many times with
surface toward the skimmer- removes nanoparticles no appreciable
skimmer (increase more of both change in the
relative velocity between submerged and characteristics of
oil and skimmer) surface oil than sorbent material
standalone after each cycle.
skimmer system. •Carbon base sorbent •Inert towards oil (Ge et al., 2016;
•Less time, sponges have been and its various Nyankson et al.,
workforce, and synthesized from CNT, derivatives. 2015; Song et al.,
resources are MWCNT, CNF, and •Ultralight in 2015; Wang et al.,
consumed Graphenes. weight, has high 2015)
•Inside the weir skimmer, •Oil removal rate Hammoud (2006) •Aerogels developed from flexibility, high
a vortex can be created by and efficiency of nanostructured Boron hydrophobic and
circulating a jet of water weir skimmer Nitride. oleophilic nature,
thereby giving rise to increase manifold. high porosity, high
stable cyclone that rapidly •Increased uptake surface area, high
sucks in oil from oil-water of oil in a given aspect ratio, high
interface. time as compared buoyancy, and
to weir skimmer. resistance towards
•Less time, burning.
workforce, and •Nanostructured
resources are Boron Nitride
consumed aerogel can be
•Movable lip weir •These are very (DESMI, n,) recovered directly
skimmer has been advantageous for by burning it- oil
developed. The depth of oil spills that will burn off
the weir lip under the undergo rapid leaving behind the
water surface is governed weathering sorbent
by the pumping rate thereby •Development of •Possess all (Ge et al., 2016;
which in turn depends on continuously polymeric materials that properties of Yuan and Chung,
the thickness of the oil altering slick swell up extensively in carbon-based and 2012)
slick. If slick is thick thickness. presence of oil nanostructured
pumping rate will be high •Adjustable weir Boron Nitride-
(continued on next page)

9
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428

Table 4 (continued ) 5.3.3. Splash-over failure

Physical Modification/addition/ Outcomes of References In rough atmospheric and oceanic conditions, oil moving along with
remediation latest improvements modification/ the waves splashes over the freeboard of the booms (Violeau et al.,
methods improvements 2007). It happens if the height of the wave exceeds the height of the
based sponges. But freeboard and the length to height ratio of the wave is below 10:1. Most
unlike them, these booms fail in rough sea conditions unless they are made such that they
have high are very flexible, displacing along with the oceanic waves (Amini, 2007;
mechanical
ITOPF, 2018a; Schultz, 1998).
strength and can
be produced
extensively with 5.3.4. Submergence failure
ease. If a boom has been deployed in rough oceanic conditions or if it is
•Altering the porosity and •Sorbent materials Idris et al. (2013) being towed at high velocities in serene oceanic conditions, it may
pore structure of synthetic of desired
material during the characteristics
become submerged below the water surface. This subsequently results in
manufacturing process. (highly buoyant, the spread of oil slick. Reserve buoyancy, which is the difference of
enhanced buoyant force and weight of the boom, determines the tendency of the
hydrophobic and boom to undergo submergence failure. If the reserve buoyancy is
oleophilic
increased, submergence failure decreases. This is achieved by using
abilities, reusable
multiple times) booms with air chamber flotation in place of conventional solid flotation
can be generated chambers (Amini, 2007; ITOPF, 2018a; Schultz, 1998).
thereby replacing
inefficient natural 5.3.5. Planning failures
organic and
natural inorganic
When wind and currents flow in opposite directions to each other
sorbents. (Violeau et al., 2007), this can cause the boom to become aligned along
•Activated carbon, •Have high (Babel and the surface of the water. It generally occurs due to insufficient ballasting;
Aerogels, Zeolites, and efficiency of oil Kurniawan, 2003; the internal tension member of the boom is above or near the level of
Organoclays removal and Zhao et al., 2005)
water surface on the boom and when the length of skirt bottom is
retention as
compared to many relatively greater than the length of the skirt on the waterline. To pre­
inorganic vent planning failure, proper ballasting of booms should be done (Amini,
sorbents. 2007; ITOPF, 2018a; Schultz, 1998).
carbon nanofibers (CNFs). Though booms are very common and an efficient technique of con­
CNT: carbon nanotube. taining oil spills, their performance is highly dependent on the sea sur­
MWCNT: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes. face, speed, the direction of airflow at the site of the spill, the towing
PVC/TPU: Polyvinyl chloride/Thermoplastic polyurethane. speed of boom, and the amount of confined oil. Most convention booms
give desired results in case of a calm water surface. Their design is not
5.3.1. Entrainment failure capable of containing oil against surface waves higher than 1–1.5 m and
In rough seas, the velocity of currents, waves increase and a head striking the boom at a right angle with velocities greater than 0.5 m/s
wave builds up upstream of the boom. The turbulence which exists (Cormack, 1999; ITOPF, 2018a). Under these conditions, diminished
downstream of the head wave causes the oil slick to disperse and it separation efficiency results either due to water ingression over the
passes from under the boom along with the flowing water (Leibovich, freeboard or oil egression below the skirt (Ivshina et al., 2015). Lack of
1976; Violeau et al., 2007). The amount of entrained oil depends on the quantitative understanding of boom depth, towing speed of boom,
velocity of currents, waves, and the nature of the oil spill. The entrain­ amount of confined oil can result in seepage beneath the floating boom
ment failure losses can be minimized by either towing the boom at a and result in subsequent spreading oil slick (Zhu and Strunin, 2001). The
speed greater than the flowing water or by deploying it at an angle that towing speed of conventional booms is limited to 0.7–1 knot which
is less than ninety degrees to the flow. A greater angle with the flow strains the towing vessel. New and advanced booms are available with
causes the velocity normal to the boom’s face to exceed that of improved design that allow confinement of oil on the sea surface with
entrainment velocity. It is not possible to maintain booms at fixed angles surface wave speeds of 3 knots or greater and with wave heights up to 3
with the current-hence entrainment losses will almost always take place m (Ivshina et al., 2015). Dynamic keel booms have been developed
(Amini, 2007; ITOPF, 2018a; Schultz, 1998). which have increased the stability of modern booms. It has been pro­
posed that placing a series of booms with porous materials or a net be­
5.3.2. Drainage failure tween two booms (the flow from below the boom has the tendency to get
As the thickness of oil contained by the boom increases, its chances of directed towards the space between the booms) reduces entrainment
flowing down the skirt of the boom increases so as to keep up with the loss. Booms made of adsorbent materials can also be used to reduce the
water flowing under the skirt (Castro et al., 2010; Goodman et al., 1996). oil entrainment.
With the increase in the depth of the skirt, the distance that the water in
front of the boom has to travel increases-hence, even at low flow ve­ 5.4. Skimmers
locities, drainage failure can take place. This critical velocity (a
component of velocity of water which is at right angles to the boom Skimmers are devices that are used almost always in combination
surface) for entrainment failure depends on skirt depth, oil character­ with booms. They can be stationary or mobile, can be self-propelled, or
istics, and the depth of oil that is being retained by the boom. Proper are operated from shores or vessels depending on the oil spill (Dave and
controlling and ballasting of the skirt bottom renders the boom to be Ghaly, 2011; Doshi et al., 2018; Michel et al., 1992; Ossai et al., 2020).
more effective in rough conditions, thus minimizing drainage losses. The oil that has been contained by the booms is selectively recovered by
Thus a boom design, that can maintain a higher critical velocity at an the skimmers using the action of skimming and/or suction and is sub­
increased speed of towing and has properly ballasted skirts, is able to sequently pumped into storage units onboard the vessels or at shorelines
minimize the loss of oil slick resulting from drainage failure (Amini, (Clark, 1989; Johnson and Pastorok, 1985; Obi et al., 2014). Skimmers
2007; ITOPF, 2018a; Schultz, 1998). are physical/mechanical devices that do not change the oil properties
while performing the collection, pumping action unlike chemical and

10
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
thermal processes that change the basic structure of oil rendering it
useless (Dave and Ghaly, 2011). This collected oil can be reprocessed
and put to subsequent uses.
Like booms, there exists no single skimmer that can collect every
kind of oil spill and cope with rough sea conditions. Several factors need
to be considered before selecting the skimmer, like the type of water
bodies in which the oil spill has taken place (whether its sea or sheltered
water), the characteristics of oil (the major ones like its viscosity, ad­
hesive properties, and if weathering of oil has taken place with time)
that has been spilled, the environmental conditions such as wind speed,
the strength of surface waves, the level of debris, presence of ice, sea­
weeds, etc at the site of the spill. The performance of skimmers decreases
with decreasing thickness of oil slick and functions best if the oil slick is
of considerable thickness. Generally, the weathering of oil takes place
due to which the oil properties keep on changing continuously with
time, thus requiring a selection of skimmers to treat a particular oil spill.
Weathering results in decreased oil slick thickness, increased oil vis­
cosity, the formation of tar balls that further complicates the functioning
of skimmers.
Skimmers are broadly divided into three categories. These categories
are namely: (a) oleophilic skimmers (b) suction skimmers (c) weir
skimmers (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Ivshina et al., 2015; Nomack and
Cleveland, 2010). Each offers some advantages over the other, but no
skimmer is perfect and qualifies for cleanup of any kind of oil spill. For
instance, weir skimmers are prone to get clogged by the floating debris
present at the site of the oil spill. In contrast, oleophilic skimmers do not
suffer this shortcoming of weir skimmers and work well in the presence
of debris.
5.4.1. Oleophilic skimmers
Just like their name suggests, oleophilic skimmers use oleophilic (oil-
loving) materials that have more preference for oil absorption than
water. These oleophilic materials are commonly shaped as a disc, drum,
belt, brush, and continuous mop chains (ITOPF, 2018b). Oleophilic
skimmers rotate on the water surface, and the oil is selectively adhered
to the surface of oleophilic materials. This adhered oil is cleaned away
from the oleophilic material either by scrapping or by squeezing the
material. It is collected in a sump from where it is subsequently trans­
ported either by using pumps or under the action of gravity to storage
tanks present on the vessel or seashore (Dave and Ghaly, 2011). These
skimmers have the highest recovered oil to free entrained water ratio
and can reach up to 90% in most cases (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; ITOPF,
2018b). Oleophilic skimmers are most effective for oils having a vis­
cosity between 100 and 2000 cSt. Flexible oleophilic skimmers can clean
up oil effectively even in presence of floating debris, ice, rough sea
conditions but are completely ineffective in recovering oil from
oil-water emulsion and oil that is contaminated by dispersants (Dave
and Ghaly, 2011; Nomack and Cleveland, 2010). It has been shown by
field testing studies that the drums and discs having groovy, irregular
surfaces will offer high recovery rates as compared to the ones with
smooth surfaces particularly for light, refined oil products.
Similar to the case of booms, the effectiveness of oleophilic skimmers
is highly influenced by the presence of surface waves. Improvements in
skimmer designs have provided a remedy for it. Flexible skimmers can
resist the impact of wave motion and can be effectively used in rough sea
conditions (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Dhanak and Xiros, 2016). Spills in
oceanic regions containing ice are difficult to be cleaned using con­
ventional oleophilic skimmers (Broje and Keller, 2006). showed that
skimmers coated with a layer of neoprene and low-density polyethylene
have better oil recovery in icy conditions. Flexible skimmers and
rope-mop skimmers have also shown good results in such conditions.
5.4.2. Suction skimmers
The functioning of suction skimmers is similar to the functioning of
domestic vacuum cleaners. Suction skimmers use vacuum pumps or air
suction systems that suck the oil directly from the surface of the water
11
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
which is pumped into sumps or storage tanks. In contrast to oleophilic
skimmers, suction skimmers are very effective for the handling of a wide
range of oil viscosities. These are highly effective for the cleanup of oil
having low viscosity to highly viscous oils. The suction hose is placed
directly into floating or contained oil which results in the ingression of
debris and high volumes of water getting sucked in (Dave and Ghaly,
2011; ITOPF, 2018b). There are chances of an explosion if the oil spill
has inflammable components present-hence suction skimmers are not
suitable in such cases (Ventikos et al., 2004). With the utilization of
proper equipment and following governmental regulations, this water
can be decanted. To prevent the ingression of debris, suction skimmers
are fitted with a mesh screen, as this debris can choke and damage the
skimmer.
Just like booms, the efficiency of suction skimmers is severely limited
by the presence of rough atmospheric and oceanic conditions-even small
disturbances caused by surface waves can result in the ingression of
large volumes of water and debris. The use of brush wheel technology
suction skimmer reduces the amount of entrained water and debris
drastically. In this case, the recovered oil contains less than 5% water
(LamorCorporation, n.d.-b). Greater oil separation can be achieved if
suction skimmers are used in combination with weir skimmers. Many
skimmer designs have been developed in recent times that can perform
efficiently in rough environmental conditions. Rotating belt technology
helps the skimmer to work in rough seas.
5.4.3. Weir skimmers
Weir skimmer has a dam or an enclosure located at the interface of
oil and water. Lips of the weir are placed slightly below the oil-water
interface. Due to the action of gravity, oil flows over the weir and is
selectively recovered with a minimal amount of water entrainment
(Dave and Ghaly, 2011; ITOPF, 2018b). This collected mixture of water
and oil is then transferred by the action of gravity or by using pumps to
storage tanks located on vessels on the seashore. This pumped oil can
now either be disposed of or recycled and put to use depending on the
condition of the oil. Unlike suction skimmers, weir skimmers have high
efficiency even in rough atmospheric and oceanic conditions (Dave and
Ghaly, 2011). But if steep waves exist in the sea, then weir skimmer
cannot be used effectively to collect oil from the surface of the sea
(Sivashanmugam, 2007). Weir skimmers work best for oils that have low
viscosity, low density, and are non-emulsive. Just like the suction
skimmers, the presence of debris can drastically reduce the oil collecting
efficiency of weir skimmers by jamming and clogging them (Jensen
et al., 1995).
Apart from the skimmers of the above three major categories, some
skimmers have been developed to serve in specialized conditions. One is
the heavy oil skimmer-its functioning is the same as that of ordinary
skimmers but it is designed to recover heavy oils that cannot be done by
weir skimmers (Ventikos et al., 2004).
5.5. Sorbent materials
This technique exploits the adsorption and/or absorption charac­
teristics of certain materials for the cleanup of oil spills. Sorbent mate­
rials are oleophilic, hydrophobic, and recover oil from the water surface
by preferentially adsorbing and/or absorbing the oil (Sun, 2010; Tso­
calis et al., 1992; Ventikos et al., 2004). These sorbents are used for the
cleanup of oil that has been left after the use of booms and skimmers
(Sun, 2010). Sorbents help convert the oil from a liquid state to a
semi-solid or solid-state substance, thus removing oil from the surface of
the water (Abdullah et al., 2010; Adebajo et al., 2003; Doerffer, 1992).
Sorbents generally remove oil from the sea surface by the mechanism of
adsorption and less commonly by absorption (ITOPF, 2018c). For a
given material to be considered a good sorbent, it should have a large
surface area as the sorption ability is proportional to the surface area
(ITOPF, 2018c).
Sorbent materials are classified into three classes based on the source
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
of origin. These are namely: (a) natural organic solvent materials, (b)
mineral/natural inorganic sorbent materials, (c) synthetic sorbent ma­
terials (Adebajo et al., 2003; Lim and Huang, 2007; Tsocalis et al., 1992;
Ventikos et al., 2004). Materials under these classes have distinct wet­
ting ability, sorption ability, density, rate of retention of liquid, and ease
of recyclability (Al-Jammal and Yuzakova, 2016; Al-Majed et al., 2012;
Ivshina et al., 2015).
5.5.1. Natural/organic sorbent materials
Some of the commonly used natural sorbent materials include waste
agricultural products like hay, feathers, corncobs, bark, peat, cotton,
kapok, cork, chicken feathers, wool, sawdust, and straw (Abdullah et al.,
2010; Banerjee et al., 2006; Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Karakasi and
Moutsatsou, 2010; Tsocalis et al., 1992). Natural sorbent materials can
recover oil volumes weighing three to fifteen times their initial weight
and are generally reusable (Sun, 2010). The major advantage of natural
sorbent materials is that they are generally abundantly available in
nature, as they are generally industrial, agricultural wastes and are very
low in cost (Cojocaru et al., 2011; Sun, 2010) or are available free of
cost. Natural sorbents are biodegradable and non-toxic. Hence, they are
considered environmentally friendly materials available for the reme­
diation of oil. After removing the liquids collected, they can be reused
but have limited reusability. Natural adsorbent suffers from low sorption
power, poor hydrophobicity, and poor buoyant properties in contrast to
mineral, synthetic sorbent materials and consumes a large amount of
cleanup time. Hence, they are only useful for the cleanup of small vol­
umes of oil spills. Due to poor hydrophobicity, most of the commonly
available natural sorbent materials take up a large amount of water
along with oil resulting in their increased weight and ultimately sinking
in water (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Doshi et al., 2018; Maleki, 2016;
Nomack and Cleveland, 2010). It can be overcome by using flotation
devices such as vacant drums joined to sorbent bales of hay (Jafarinejad,
2017). Generally, they are loose materials and after their use, it is
difficult to collect them. To address this problem, the sorbent materials
can be wrapped in a mesh that prevents them from spreading. These
drawbacks of natural sorbents can be removed by the modification of
existing properties like increasing the size of pores, making the sub­
stance more hydrophobic. But most of these modifications offset the
eco-friendly characteristics of natural sorbent materials. They cannot be
used together with skimmers as they act just like the debris present at
the spill site and clog the skimmers rendering them useless.
In recent times, new and innovative absorbent using paper sludge
(waste of paper industries) has been developed which has high ab­
sorption ability and is capable of absorbing any oil that has been spilled
on either water surface or some hard surface. After sorbent made of
paper pulp has been used, upon its controlled incineration, it gets con­
verted to inert meta-kaolin which is a good hydrophilic solvent (Likon
and Saarela, 2012; Schmidt, 2013). It was reported recently that nano­
particles in combination with polymers are better at removing oil,
simple to recover and reuse than conventional sorbents (Doshi et al.,
2018; Fouad et al., 2016). Cotton fiber with attached silica nanoparticles
and octadecyltrichlorosilane on its surface was found to be ten times
more reusable with no appreciable change in sorption ability (Calcagnile
et al., 2017; Doshi et al., 2018). Similarly, coating Kapok fibers with
nanoparticles also highly improved their sorption capacity (40–85 g/g)
and reusability (Doshi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2012).
5.5.2. Mineral/natural inorganic sorbent materials
Mineral/Natural inorganic sorbent materials are the most widely
used naturally occurring sorbent materials to clean oil spills. A few of the
commonly used natural inorganic sorbent materials are Vermiculite,
Zeolites, activated carbon, organo-clays, glass, sand, and volcanic ash
(Carmody et al., 2007; Dave and Ghaly, 2011; Ding et al., 2001; Hola­
koo, 2001). Ekoperl and Pevatone are natural inorganic sorbents that
were used a few years back and are much better sorbents than the ones
mentioned before. However, they are costly materials, and hence their
12
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
use has been discontinued (Idris et al., 2013). Mineral inorganic sorbent
materials offer a high surface area for sorption, are mechanically and
chemically stable, inexpensive, as they are raw materials found in na­
ture. Hence, these sorbent materials serve as very efficient and low-cost
materials used for remediation of marine oil spills. In contrast to natu­
ral/organic sorbent materials, mineral sorbent materials are generally
non-inflammable and are resistant to acidic and basic substances (Azi­
zian and Khosravi, 2019; Bandura et al., 2017). They have fair absorp­
tion capacity and can absorb oil weights about four to twenty times their
weight (Sun, 2010).
However, inorganic sorbents have disadvantages that are required to
be considered before using them to treat oil spills. Just like booms,
skimmers, and natural organic sorbent materials, their application and
performance are strongly dependent on the oceanic, atmospheric con­
ditions, presence of debris at the sight of an oil spill. For example,
vermiculite, clay are light, loose materials and cannot be used if strong
wind and ocean currents are prevailing at the site of an oil spill. Some of
these mineral sorbent materials pose serious health risks to humans if
inhaled. They are non-biodegradable, have poor reusability, are more
expensive than natural, and some synthetic sorbents. Mineral absor­
bents, made of straight-chain hydrocarbons, have poor absorption ca­
pacity which is only 15% of the dry weight of the sorbent particles
(Azizian and Khosravi, 2019). Just like organic sorbents, they also have
a porous structure, thereby taking up water with oil-hence, they have
low effectiveness. Mineral sorbents cannot be used on the surface of the
water as they have poor absorption capacity, low buoyancy owing to
their large density. Thus, their floating ability is the least compared to
the other two sorbent types (Bhardwaj and Bhaskarwar, 2018).
Many field studies and researches have confirmed the high absorp­
tion and retention ability of organo-clays making them very attractive
sorbent materials. Activated carbons used in combination with organo-
clays show improved sorption ability resulting from the synergistic ef­
fect of organo-clays (Alther, 2001; Beall, 2003; Carmody et al., 2007).
Zeolites and modified mesoporous silicas have also demonstrated that
they have much high efficiency in oil removal and retention as
compared to the current inorganic sorbents, the sorbent materials that
were used a few years back (Babel and Kurniawan, 2003; Zhao et al.,
2005).
5.5.3. Synthetic sorbent materials
Synthetic sorbents are artificial (man-made) and the most widely
used sorbent materials for commercial use and are prepared from in­
dustrial, household, agricultural waste, and polymeric sorbent mate­
rials. They are manufactured in different shapes and sizes, as rolls,
sheets, sorbents films applied on booms, etc. Most commonly used
polymeric materials for the manufacture of synthetic sorbents are
Polyethylene (PE), Polyurethane (PU), Polyester, Polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), Polypropylene, and Polystyrene (PS) (Al-Majed et al., 2012;
Azizian and Khosravi, 2019; Karan et al., 2011). Each synthetic adsor­
bent has its own characteristic porosity and pore structure. They are
manufactured such that their hydrophobic and oleophilic abilities are
much enhanced than their organic and mineral counterparts. Hence,
they have high water to oil intake. Because of this increased oleophilic
and hydrophobic capacity, most of the synthetic adsorbents can take up
oil weights 70–100 times their weight. Open-cell Polyurethane sorbents
can adsorb oil weighing 100 times the initial sorbent’s weight (Jarre
et al., 1979). It has been reported that the highest oil adsorption capacity
is for sorbents made of Polypropylene (Teas et al., 2001). Unlike mineral
sorbents, due to low density, synthetic materials are highly buoyant and
don’t readily sink into the water. Characteristics of this class of sorbent
materials can be varied by changing the microporous structure of syn­
thetic material used in the manufacturing process (Idris et al., 2013).
Synthetic sorbents are the most effective sorbent materials in recovering
oil from an oil-water mixture. In many instances, the highest absorption
capacity can be achieved by synthetic sorbents in contrast to natural
sorbents, inorganic/mineral sorbents (Dave and Ghaly, 2011; ITOPF,
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
2018c). Some synthetic adsorbents also offer the advantage of being
reusable several times.
The major disadvantage of synthetic sorbent materials is their non-
biodegradable nature which complicates their disposal after use. Thus,
synthetic sorbents pose a serious threat to the environment (Choi and
Cloud, 1992; Deschamps et al., 2003). Dumping used material in a
landfill is a cheap way of disposing but it’s not an environmentally
feasible option and so is incineration which is highly expensive and is
also not a nature-friendly alternative (Abdel-Shafy and Mansour, 2018;
Mahmood et al., 2015). Organic and inorganic sorbents materials
despite suffering from several shortcomings are attractive options as
they are generally agricultural and industrial wastes thus are present in
abundance hence can be procured free of cost or at a meager price.
In the past few years, many synthetic sorbents have been synthe­
sized. For instance, Electrospun Polyvinyl Chloride fibers and Electro­
spunfibers of Polystyrene have been found to have oil sorption capacity
as high as 150 g/g (Lin et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2011). Most of these novel
materials are under development and are not yet commercially pro­
duced. In the previous years, superhydrophobic and super oleophilic
meshes have been developed that very have high absorption capacity.
Superhydrophobic melamine sorbent sponges formed by coating mel­
amine surface with organofunctional alkoxysilane molecules (silaniza­
tion) can take up oil weighing up to 163 times its weight, maintain their
absorption ability even after reusing 1000 times (Pham and Dickerson,
2014). An open-cell polymer composed of polypropylene (PP) and pol­
ytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is highly hydrophobic and oleophilic for a
wide range of oils, it is also resistant to permanent deformation that
occurs during subsequent wringing and compression to collect the oil
that has been absorbed by the sorbent material (Rizvi et al., 2014). It
was reported that monodispersed hydrophobic magnetite nanoparticles
when sprinkled on an oil spill become attached to oil particles and by
subsequent application of the magnetic field, oil can be separated from
water (Atta et al., 2015). Hydrophobic materials, having nano or mi­
crostructures, can remove even traces of oil and hence are capable of
cleaning oil spills completely. Superhydrophobic and porous fluorous
metal-organic frameworks (FMOFs) that are able to take up large
amounts of a wide range of oils have been developed which are potential
substitutes of zeolites and activated carbon being currently used (Yang
et al., 2011). Very porous materials capable of absorbing a large volume
of oil called Aerogels have been developed in recent years. Aerogels are
capable of absorbing 100 times their weight without any appreciable
uptake of water. They have a high ability to take up oil and are highly
buoyant (Maleki, 2016). The absorbed oil can then be recovered and
reused. It is easy to transport a large amount of aerogels and they can be
recycled, reused multiple times with the same absorption capacity
(Azizian and Khosravi, 2019). But preparing a large amount of aerogels
is very expensive and hence aerogels cannot be used for large spills.
Phase-selective organogelators have been developed to clean oil spills
which help in the mechanical recovery of oil by immobilizing it. How­
ever, organogelators are still in the early stages of development and
hence cannot be considered as a potential modified substitute for
existing sorbent materials (Doshi et al., 2018).
Using sorbents as a way of remediation of oil spills is both labor-
intensive and tedious. They cannot be directly employed for treating
large volumes of oil and are almost always used to clean up the
remaining oil traces. With time, the weathering of oil results in
decreased buoyancy difference between the oil and seawater which re­
sults in decreased buoyancy of sorbent materials. The changes taking
place in oil properties like its viscosity due to the weathering process
render the sorbents ineffective (Ivshina et al., 2015; Ornitz and Champ,
2002). The use of sorbents as a primary response for the remediation of
an oil spill in open seas is highly discouraged especially in rough at­
mospheric and oceanic conditions. Sorbent materials are easily carried
away with the wind and/or surface waves causing further pollution if
they are non-biodegradable and toxic. Sorbents can never be used in
combination with skimmers as they drastically interfere with the
13
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
working of skimmers.
To efficiently clean an oil spill, sorbent material should have high
buoyancy characteristics and the ability to maintain it in the due course
of operation i.e., remain afloat even after reaching its saturation limit.
The oil retention ability of a sorbent material is also a key indicator of
sorbent performance. Some sorbents swiftly adsorb oil but due to the
impact of wind, surface waves, and current at the site of the spill, this oil
is released back. Hence, to retain an appreciable amount of oil, these
sorbents have to be retrieved in a proper window of time. Similarly,
some sorbents when taken out from the water, owing to their increased
weight, sag and deform consequently releasing oil that was taken up
during remediation operation. Sorbents composed of organic materials
have naturally poor strength consequently they have poor oil retention
ability. Sorbent materials with fine pores typically show good oil
retention capabilities but are useless for the case of heavy and viscous oil
(ITOPF, 2018c). Sorbent materials should have a high saturation ca­
pacity and shouldn’t become completely saturated after taking only a
little amount of fluid otherwise it is of no use on a commercial level.
Sorbents should be durable i.e. they should be reusable multiple times
(Al-Jammal and Yuzakova, 2016).
5.6. Currently employed physical methods for marine oil spill
remediation-merits, demerits
The Grande America cargo vessel marine oil spill (2019) near the
French coast has been tackled by the use of booms, skimmers (Wright
and Braun, 2020). Short term merit of usage of these methods is that the
environmental negative impact is minimized. A long-term advantage
may be better oil recovery by increasing the speed of skimmers as they
rotate. Long-term demerits of using booms and skimmers are that they
lead to high oil spill cleaning costs as they tend to involve more tech­
nicians and equipment for operation. The cost further increases as the oil
spill location are further away from the shorelines. Also, the boom
performance depends on the sea conditions, and different types of fail­
ures take place which adds to the limitations. The Mauritius marine oil
spill (2020) due to a Japanese oil tanker leak has been remedied by the
usage of booms made with sugar cane and human hair (Wright and
Braun, 2020). The usage of natural sorbents in combination with booms
is a very environmentally friendly and cost-effective strategy to reme­
diate marine oil spills. The current application of waste materials like
sugarcane, human hair, which can act as natural sorbents, is showing
great promise to treat marine oil spills. The abundance of these waste
materials from agriculture or human use, near the location of the marine
oil spill, and the material processing techniques are key factors that will
decide the long-term efficacy of these methods. Also, a company like
Markleen has developed systems involving multiple booms called “MOS
Sweeper” which can be deployed in less than half an hour for offshore or
emergency marine oil spill response in remote sites (Markleen,).
6. Conclusion and future perspectives
Marine oil spills can have disastrous consequences on the marine
ecosystem. It can take decades for the ecosystem to recover and still it
cannot completely revert to its initial state. Physical remediation tech­
niques have little or no detrimental effect on marine biota and hence are
considered an extremely eco-friendly measure for oil spill treatment.
However, the effectiveness of the physical remediation techniques is
highly dependent on the environmental and oceanic conditions at the
site of the oil spill. Their efficacy is not as high as in-situ burning or the
biological remediation techniques and they are much more labor
extensive, more expensive than thermal remediation or bioremediation
methods. Physical remediation methods, for example, booms are pri­
marily used to contain the oil slick. Their performance is largely
dependent on the conditions present at the site of the oil spill. Strong
gusty winds, surface waves can render them to be ineffective. The
various types of boom failures have been discussed extensively in this
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
paper. As a consequence of the design changes to reduce these failures,
booms have become more buoyant, have better heave and roll response,
thus enabling them to withstand rough physical conditions. However,
more work may be required to develop better hybrid booms coated with
novel materials. Also, more research works are needed to obtain greater
performance for skimmers under different sea conditions and oil types.
Self-propelled skimmers are a good choice for operation in the harbor
side with calm sea. To ensure good performance, the speed of the
skimmer needs to be monitored carefully so that it can handle the oil
arrival rate at the collection location. The type of skimmer should be
chosen depending on the viscosity of the oil. To enhance the overall
performance of the skimmer, positive displacement pumps may be used
for improved recovery of oil. The performance of sorbents is affected by
their ability to take up and retain the oil. The subsequent reuse and
disposal also limit their use as a potential remediation technique. In the
latest developments, nanoparticles in combination with polymers have
been found to be better at removing oil, simple to recover and reuse than
conventional sorbents. The application of novel materials like Zeolites,
Aerogels may be tried out to improve the performance and oil removal
capabilities of sorbents. Compared to booms and skimmers, sorbents
(especially natural sorbents) have greater efficacy for minimizing ma­
rine oil spill damage and more cost-effective.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Chemical Engineering Depart­
ment, BITS Pilani, Pilani and Library, BITS Pilani, Pilani, India for
providing the facilities to conduct the research.
References
Abdel-Naby, A.A., 2018. Improving the performance of oil spill floating boom using a
hybrid system: floating boom integrated with surface weir skimmers. Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research 5, 350–356.
Abdel-Naby, A.A., Hammoud, A.H., 2018. Oily wastewater separator enhancement using
hybrid system: drum skimmer integrated with air injection & surface air stream.
International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering 6, 145.
Abdel-Shafy, H.I., Mansour, M.S.M., 2018. Solid waste issue: sources, composition,
disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 27, 1275–1290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.07.003.
Abdullah, M.A., Rahmah, A.U., Man, Z., 2010. Physicochemical and sorption
characteristics of Malaysian Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. as a natural oil sorbent.
J. Hazard Mater. 177, 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.085.
Adebajo, M.O., Frost, R.L., Kloprogge, J.T., Carmody, O., Kokot, S., 2003. Porous
materials for oil spill cleanup: a review of synthesis and absorbing properties.
J. Porous Mater. 10, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027484117065.
Aguilera, F., Méndez, J., Pásaro, E., Laffon, B., 2010. Review on the effects of exposure to
spilled oils on human health. J. Appl. Toxicol. 30, 291–301. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jat.1521.
Al-Hammadi, A., Al-Abdalrazaq, A.A., Al-Abdalrazaq, A.A., 1995. Atlas of Iraqi War
Crimes in the State of Kuwait. Atlas Est.
Al-Jammal, N., Yuzakova, T., 2016. Review on the Effectiveness of Adsorbent Materials
in Oil Spills Clean up. 7th International Conference of ICEEE, Budapest, Hungary.
Al-Majed, A.A., Adebayo, A.R., Hossain, M.E., 2012. A sustainable approach to
controlling oil spills. J. Environ. Manag. 113, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2012.07.034.
Alló, M., Loureiro, M., 2013. Estimating a meta-damage regression model for large
accidental oil spills. Ecol. Econ. 86, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2012.11.007.
Alther, G., 2001. Soil and groundwater remediation with organoclay. Contam Soils 6,
225–231.
Amini, A., 2007. Contractile Floating Barriers for Confinement and Recuperation of Oil
Slicks [Doctoral dissertation, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne].Infoscience
(EPFL institutional repository).
Amro, M.M., 2004. Treatment Techniques of Oil-Contaminated Soil and Water Aquifers.
International Conference on Water Resources & Arid Environment, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, pp. 1–11.
14
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
Annunciado, T.R., Sydenstricker, T.H.D., Amico, S.C., 2005. Experimental investigation
of various vegetable fibers as sorbent materials for oil spills. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50,
1340–1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.043.
Asadpour, R., Sapari, N.B., Tuan, Z.Z., Jusoh, H., Riahi, A., Uka, O.K., 2013. Application
of sorbent materials in oil spill management: a review. Casp. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2,
46–57.
Atlas, R.M., Cerniglia, C.E., 1995. Bioremediation of petroleum pollutants. Bioscience 45,
332–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312494.
Atlas, R.M., Hazen, T.C., 2011. Oil biodegradation and bioremediation: a tale of the two
worst spills in U.S. history. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 6709–6715. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es2013227.
Atta, A.M., Al-Lohedan, H.A., Al-Hussain, S.A., 2015. Functionalization of magnetite
nanoparticles as oil spill collector. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 6911–6931. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijms16046911.
Azevedo, A., Oliveira, A., Fortunato, A.B., Zhang, J., Baptista, A.M., 2014. A cross-scale
numerical modeling system for management support of oil spill accidents. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 80, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.028.
Azizian, S., Khosravi, M., 2019. Advanced oil spill decontamination techniques. In:
Kyzas, G.Z., Mitropoulos, A.C. (Eds.), Interface Science and Technology. Elsevier,
pp. 283–332.
Babel, S., Kurniawan, T.A., 2003. Low-cost adsorbents for heavy metals uptake from
contaminated water: a review. J. Hazard Mater. 97, 219–243. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0304-3894(02)00263-7.
Balseiro, A., Espí, A., Márquez, I., Pérez, V., Ferreras, M.C., Marín, J.F.G., Prieto, J.M.,
2005. Pathological marine birds affected by the Prestige’s oil spill in the north of
Spain. J. Wildl. Dis. 41, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-41.2.371.
Bandura, L., Woszuk, A., Kołodyńska, D., Franus, W., 2017. Application of mineral
sorbents for removal of petroleum substances: a review. Minerals 7. https://doi.org/
10.3390/min7030037.
Banerjee, S.S., Joshi, M.V., Jayaram, R.V., 2006. Treatment of oil spill by sorption
technique using fatty acid grafted sawdust. Chemosphere 64, 1026–1031. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.01.065.
Beall, G.W., 2003. The use of organo-clays in water treatment. Appl. Clay Sci. 24, 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2003.07.006.
Bhardwaj, N., Bhaskarwar, A.N., 2018. A review on sorbent devices for oil-spill control.
Environ. Pollut. 243, 1758–1771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.141.
Blackburn, M., Mazzacano, C., Fallon, C., Hoffman Black, S., 2014. Oil in our oceans. A
review of the impacts of oil spills on marine invertebrates. The Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation 152.
Bragg, J.R., Prince, R.C., Harner, E.J., Atlas, R.M., 1994. Effectiveness of bioremediation
for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368, 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/
368413a0.
Brody, T.M., Di Bianca, P., Krysa, J., 2012. Analysis of inland crude oil spill threats,
vulnerabilities, and emergency response in the midwest United States. Risk Anal. 32,
1741–1749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01813.x.
Broje, V., Keller, A.A., 2006. Improved mechanical oil spill recovery using an optimized
geometry for the skimmer surface. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 7914–7918. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es061842m.
Brown, M., 1989. Biodegradation of oil in freshwaters. In: Green, J., Trett, M.W. (Eds.),
The Fate and Effects of Oil in Freshwater. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
pp. 197–213.
Buist, I., McCourt, J., Potter, S., Ross, S., Trudel, K., 1999. In situ burning. Pure Appl.
Chem. 71, 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199971010043.
Butt, J.A., Duckworth, D.F., Perry, S.G., 1986. Characterization of Spilled Oil Samples:
Purpose, Sampling, Analysis, and Interpretation. J. Wiley, London. Institute of
Petroleum.
Calcagnile, P., Caputo, I., Cannoletta, D., Bettini, S., Valli, L., Demitri, C., 2017. A bio-
based composite material for water remediation from oily contaminants. Mater. Des.
134, 374–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.08.063.
Carmody, O., Frost, R., Xi, Y., Kokot, S., 2007. Adsorption of hydrocarbons on organo-
clays–implications for oil spill remediation. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 305, 17–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.032.
Carpenter, A., 2019. Oil pollution in the North Sea: the impact of governance measures
on oil pollution over several decades. Hydrobiologia 845, 109–127. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10750-018-3559-2.
Castro, A., Iglesias, G., Carballo, R., Fraguela, J.A., 2010. Floating boom performance
under waves and currents. J. Hazard Mater. 174, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2009.09.040.
Chang, S.E., Stone, J., Demes, K., Piscitelli, M., 2014. Consequences of oil spills: a review
and framework for informing planning. Ecol. Soc. 19 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
06406-190226.
Choi, H.M., Cloud, R.M., 1992. Natural sorbents in oil spill cleanup. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 26, 772–776. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00028a016.
Cirer-Costa, J.C., 2015. Tourism and its hypersensitivity to oil spills. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
91, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.027.
Clark, R.B., 1989. Marine Pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cleveland, C.J., Hogan, C.M., Saundry, P., 2010. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in:
Encyclopedia of Earth accessed 2.19.2021. https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Dee
pwater_Horizon_oil_spill.
Cohen, J.H., McCormick, L.R., Burkhardt, S.M., 2014. Effects of dispersant and oil on
survival and swimming activity in a marine Copepod. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 92, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-013-1191-4.
Cojocaru, C., Macoveanu, M., Cretescu, I., 2011. Peat-based sorbents for the removal of
oil spills from water surface: application of artificial neural network modeling.
Colloid. Surface. Physicochem. Eng. Aspect. 384, 675–684. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.05.036.
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
Cormack, D., 1999. Response to Marine Oil Pollution — Review and Assessment.
Springer, Netherlands.
Daling, P.S., StrØm, T., 1999. Weathering of oils at sea: model/field data comparisons.
Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 5, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(98)00051-6.
Dave, D., Ghaly, A.E., 2011. Remediation technologies for marine oil spills: a critical
review and comparative analysis. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 7, 423–440. https://doi.org/
10.3844/ajessp.2011.423.440.
Davis, D., Guidry, R., 1996. Oil, oil spills and the state’s responsibilities. Basin Research
Institute Bulletin 6, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(99)00081-X.
Davoodi, S.M., Miri, S., Taheran, M., Brar, S.K., Galvez-Cloutier, R., Martel, R., 2020.
Bioremediation of unconventional oil contaminated ecosystems under natural and
assisted conditions: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 2054–2067. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.9b00906.
Delvigne, G.A.L., Sweeney, C.E., 1988. Natural dispersion of oil. Oil Chem. Pollut. 4,
281–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-8579(88)80003-0.
Deschamps, G., Caruel, H., Borredon, M.-E., Bonnin, C., Vignoles, C., 2003. Oil removal
from water by selective sorption on hydrophobic cotton fibers. 1. Study of sorption
properties and comparison with other cotton fiber-based sorbents. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 37, 1013–1015. https://doi.org/10.1021/es020061s.
DESMI, n.d.-b. A-Boom - a new environmentally friendly fence boom [Web Page].
http://www.desmi.com/UserFiles/file/oil%20spill%20response/e-leaflet/03-02_A
-BOOM.pdf (accessed 7.6.2020).
DESMI, n.d.-c. Terrapin - Self-adjusting weir skimmer [Web Page]. http://www.desmi.
com/UserFiles/file/oil%20spill%20response/e-leaflet/05-04_TERRAPIN-UK.pdf
(accessed 7.6.2020).
Dhanak, M.R., Xiros, N.I., 2016. Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering. Springer.
Díez, S., Jover, E., Bayona, J.M., Albaigés, J., 2007. Prestige oil spill. III. Fate of a heavy
oil in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 3075–3082. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es0629559.
Ding, Z., Kloprogge, J.T., Frost, R.L., Lu, G.Q., Zhu, H.Y., 2001. Porous clays and pillared
clays-based catalysts. Part 2: a review of the catalytic and molecular sieve
applications. J. Porous Mater. 8, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1013113030912.
Doerffer, J.W., 1992. Chapter 3 - mechanical response technology to an oil spill. In:
Doerffer, J.W. (Ed.), Oil Spill Response in the Marine Environment. Pergamon,
Amsterdam, pp. 133–222.
Doshi, B., Sillanpää, M., Kalliola, S., 2018. A review of bio-based materials for oil spill
treatment. Water Res. 135, 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.02.034.
Elastec, n.d. Hydro-Fire Boom [Web Page]. https://www.elastec.com/products/floating-
boom-barriers/fire-resistant-oil-boom/hydro-fire-boom/(accessed 7.7.2020).
Elliott, A.J., 1986. Shear diffusion and the spread of oil in the surface layers of the North
Sea. Deutsche Hydrografische Zeitschrift 39, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02408134.
Fay, J.A., 1971. Physical Processes in the Spread of Oil on a Water Surface. International
Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.
Fingas, M., 1995. Oil Spills and Their Cleanup. Chemistry and Industry, London),
pp. 1005–1008.
Fingas, M., 2012. The Basics of Oil Spill Cleanup. CRC press.
Fingas, M., 2018. The challenges of remotely measuring oil slick thickness. Rem. Sens.
10, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020319.
Fouad, R.R., Aljohani, H.A., Shoueir, K.R., 2016. Biocompatible poly(vinyl alcohol)
nanoparticle-based binary blends for oil spill control. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 112, 46–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.046.
Ge, J., Zhao, H.-Y., Zhu, H.-W., Huang, J., Shi, L.-A., Yu, S.-H., 2016. Advanced sorbents
for oil-spill cleanup: recent advances and future perspectives. Adv. Mater. 28,
10459–10490. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201601812.
Goodlad, J., 1996. Effects of the Braer oil spill on the Shetland seafood industry. Sci.
Total Environ. 186, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(96)05091-7.
Goodman, R.H., Brown, H.M., An, C.-F., Rowe, R.D., 1996. Dynamic modelling of oil
boom failure using computational fluid dynamics. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 3,
213–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(97)00015-7.
Hammoud, A.H., 2006. Enhanced Oil Spill Recovery Rate Using the Weir Skimmer
accessed 7.7.2020. https://archive.epa.gov/emergencies/content/fss/web/pdf/ha
mmoud.pdf.
Hansen, B.H., Salaberria, I., Olsen, A.J., Read, K.E., Øverjordet, I.B., Hammer, K.M.,
Altin, D., Nordtug, T., 2015. Reproduction dynamics in copepods following exposure
to chemically and mechanically dispersed crude oil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49,
3822–3829. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504903k.
Hicken, C.E., Linbo, T.L., Baldwin, D.H., Willis, M.L., Myers, M.S., Holland, L.,
Larsen, M., Stekoll, M.S., Rice, S.D., Collier, T.K., Scholz, N.L., Incardona, J.P., 2011.
Sublethal exposure to crude oil during embryonic development alters cardiac
morphology and reduces aerobic capacity in adult fish. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 7086–7090. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1019031108.
Hoang, A.T., Pham, V., Nguyen, D., 2018. A report of oil spill recovery technologies. Int.
J. Appl. Eng. Res. 13, 4915–4928.
Hoel, A.H., Skjoldal, H.R., Sander, G., Loeng, H., Jakobsen, I., Dahl, I., 2011. The Arctic
Ocean Review Project. PHASE I REPORT 2009-2011.
Holakoo, L., 2001. On the Capability of Rhamnolipids for Oil Spill Control of Surface
Water. Concordia University.
Hook, S.E., Osborn, H.L., Spadaro, D.A., Simpson, S.L., 2014. Assessing mechanisms of
toxicant response in the amphipod Melita plumulosa through transcriptomic
profiling. Aquat. Toxicol. 146, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquatox.2013.11.001.
15
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
Hussein, M., Amer, A., Sawsan, I., 2009. Oil spill sorption using carbonized pith bagasse.
Application of carbonized pith bagasse as loose fiber. Global Nest Journal 11,
440–448. https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.000539.
Idris, J., Eyu, G., Ahmad, Z., Chukwuekezie, C., 2013. Oil spills and sustainable cleanup
approach. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 7, 272–280.
Incardona, J.P., Collier, T.K., Scholz, N.L., 2004. Defects in cardiac function precede
morphological abnormalities in fish embryos exposed to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 196, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
taap.2003.11.026.
ITOPF, 2018a. TIP 03: Use of Booms in Oil Pollution Response accessed 9.20.2019. www.
itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP_3_Use_of_Booms_in_Oil_
Pollution_Response.pdf.
ITOPF, 2018b. TIP 05: Use of Skimmers in Oil Pollution Response accessed 9.20.2019.
www.itopforg/www.itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP_5_Us
e_of_Skimmers_in_Oil_Pollution_Response.pdf.
ITOPF, 2018c. TIP 08: Use of Sorbent Materials in Oil Spill Response accessed 9.20.2019.
www.itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/TIP_8_Use_of_Sorbent_
Materials_in_Oil_Pollution_Response.pdf.
ITOPF, 2018d. TIP 11: Effects of Oil Pollution on Fisheries and Mariculture accessed
7.4.2020. https://www.itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS
/TIP_11_Effects_of_Oil_Pollution_on_Fisheries_and_Mariculture.pdf.
ITOPF, 2018e. TIP 12: Effects of Oil Pollution on Social and Economic Activities accessed
7.4.2020. https://www.itopf.org/fileadmin/data/Documents/TIPS%20TAPS/
TIP_12_Effects_of_Oil_Pollution_on_Social_and_Economic_Activities.pdf.
Ivshina, I.B., Kuyukina, M.S., Krivoruchko, A.V., Elkin, A.A., Makarov, S.O.,
Cunningham, C.J., Peshkur, T.A., Atlas, R.M., Philp, J.C., 2015. Oil spill problems
and sustainable response strategies through new technologies. Environ. Sci.:
Processes & Impacts 17, 1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00070j.
Jafarinejad, S., 2017. 4 - oil-spill response. In: Jafarinejad, S. (Ed.), Petroleum Waste
Treatment and Pollution Control. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 117–148.
Jarre, W., Marx, M., Wurmb, R., 1979. Polyurethanschäume mit hohem
ölabsorptionsvermögen. Die Angewandte Makromolekulare Chemie 78, 67–74.
https://doi.org/10.1002/apmc.1979.050780104.
Jensen, H., McClimans, T.A., Johannessen, B.O., 1995. Evaluation of Weir Skimmers
without Testing (Norway).
Jiang, Z., Huang, Y., Xu, X., Liao, Y., Shou, L., Liu, J., Chen, Q., Zeng, J., 2010. Advance
in the toxic effects of petroleum water accommodated fraction on marine plankton.
Acta Ecol. Sin. 30, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2009.12.002.
Johnson, T.L., Pastorok, R.A., 1985. Oil Spill Cleanup: Options for Minimizing Adverse
Ecological Impacts. American Petroleum Institute.
Jordan, R.E., Payne, J.R., 1980. Fate and weathering of petroleum spills in the marine
environment: a literature review and synopsis. Ann Arbor Science 141–166.
Justin, R., Sokovic, M., 2011. Industrialisation of easy boom. Archives of Materials
Science and Engineering 47, 110–116.
Kapoor, S., Rawat, H.S., 1994. Indian West Coast Oil Spills: A Remedial Preparedness,
SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, pp. 525–538. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Karakasi, O.K., Moutsatsou, A., 2010. Surface modification of high calcium fly ash for its
application in oil spill clean up. Fuel 89, 3966–3970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2010.06.029.
Karan, C.P., Rengasamy, R., Das, D., 2011. Oil spill cleanup by structured fibre assembly.
Indian J. Fibre Text. Res. 36, 190–200.
Khosravi, M., Azizian, S., 2017. Preparation of superhydrophobic and superoleophilic
nanostructured layer on steel mesh for oil-water separation. Separ. Purif. Technol.
172, 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.08.035.
Kingston, P.F., 2002. Long-term environmental impact of oil spills. Spill Sci. Technol.
Bull. 7, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(02)00051-8.
Korotenko, K.A., Bowman, M.J., Dietrich, D.E., 2010. High-Resolution numerical model
for predicting the transport and dispersal of oil spilled in the Black sea. Terr. Atmos.
Ocean Sci. 21, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2009.04.24.01.
Kumari, A., Kaur, R., Kaur, R., 2019. A review on fate and remediation techniques of oil
spills. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 10, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.26452/ijrps.
v10i1.1786.
Laffon, B., Pásaro, E., Valdiglesias, V., 2016. Effects of exposure to oil spills on human
health: updated review. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B 19, 105–128. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1168730.
LamorCorporation, n.d.-a. Arctic Skimmer 125 [Web Page]. https://www.lamor.com
/equipment/arctic-skimmer-125 (accessed 7.7.2020).
Langangen, Ø., Olsen, E., Stige, L.C., Ohlberger, J., Yaragina, N.A., Vikebø, F.B.,
Bogstad, B., Stenseth, N.C., Hjermann, D.Ø., 2017. The effects of oil spills on marine
fish: implications of spatial variation in natural mortality. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 119,
102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.037.
Lee, R.F., 2003. Photo-oxidation and photo-toxicity of crude and refined oils. Spill Sci.
Technol. Bull. 8, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(03)00015-X.
Leibovich, S., 1976. Oil slick instability and the entrainment failure of oil containment
booms. J. Fluid Eng. 98, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3448229.
Leighton, F.A., 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environ. Rev. 1, 92–103.
https://doi.org/10.1139/a93-008.
Lessard, R.R., DeMarco, G., 2000. The significance of oil spill dispersants. Spill Sci.
Technol. Bull. 6, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-2561(99)00061-4.
Lewis, A., Aurand, D.V., 1997. Putting Dispersants to Work: Overcoming Obstacles. An
Issue Paper Prepared for the 1997 International Oil Spill Conference. American
Petroleum Institute.
Likon, M., Saarela, J., 2012. The conversion of paper mill sludge into absorbent for oil
spill sanitation - the life cycle assessment. Macromol. Symp. 320, 50–56. https://doi.
org/10.1002/masy.201251006.
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
Lim, T.-T., Huang, X., 2007. Evaluation of kapok (Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn.) as a
natural hollow hydrophobic–oleophilic fibrous sorbent for oil spill cleanup.
Chemosphere 66, 955–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.062.
Lin, J., Shang, Y., Ding, B., Yang, J., Yu, J., Al-Deyab, S.S., 2012. Nanoporous polystyrene
fibers for oil spill cleanup. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2011.11.002.
Logeshwaran, P., Megharaj, M., Chadalavada, S., Bowman, M., Naidu, R., 2018.
Petroleum hydrocarbons (PH) in groundwater aquifers: an overview of
environmental fate, toxicity, microbial degradation and risk-based remediation
approaches. Environmental Technology & Innovation 10, 175–193. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eti.2018.02.001.
Lucas, Z., Macgregor, C., 2006. Characterization and source of oil contamination on the
beaches and seabird corpses, Sable Island, Nova Scotia, 1996-2005. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
52, 778–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.11.023.
Mahmood, K., Batool, S.A., Chaudhry, M.N., Daud, A., 2015. Evaluating municipal solid
waste dumps using geographic information system. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 24,
879–886.
Maleki, H., 2016. Recent advances in aerogels for environmental remediation
applications: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 300, 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2016.04.098.
Mapelli, F., Scoma, A., Michoud, G., Aulenta, F., Boon, N., Borin, S., Kalogerakis, N.,
Daffonchio, D., 2017. Biotechnologies for marine oil spill cleanup: indissoluble ties
with microorganisms. Trends Biotechnol. 35, 860–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tibtech.2017.04.003.
Markleen, n.d. Mos sweeper [Web Page]. https://markleen.com/oil-spills-solutions
/vessel-mounted-systems (accessed 2.19.2021).
Mercer, K., Trevors, J.T., 2011. Remediation of oil spills in temperate and tropical coastal
marine environments. Environmentalist 31, 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10669-011-9335-8.
Michel, J., Fingas, M., 2016. Oil Spills: causes, consequences, prevention, and
countermeasures. In: Crawley, G.M. (Ed.), Fossil Fuels. World Scientific,
pp. 159–201.
Michel, J., Shigenaka, G., Hoff, R., Scholz, D., Hayes, M.O., 1992. An Introduction to
Coastal Habitats and Biological Resources for Oil Spill Response.
Mishra, A.K., Kumar, G.S., 2015. Weathering of oil spill: modeling and analysis. Aquatic
Procedia 4, 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.058.
Moncrieff, J., Simpson, C., 1993. Economic and social impacts. Mar. Pol. 17, 469–472.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(93)90067-D.
Ndimele, P.E., 2017. The Political Ecology of Oil and Gas Activities in the Nigerian
Aquatic Ecosystem. Academic Press.
Neff, J., 1988. Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents in the marine
environment. In: Geraci, J.R., Aubin, D.J. (Eds.), Synthesis of Effects of Oil on Marine
Mammals, pp. 2–33.
Neff, J.M., Owens, E.H., Stoker, S.W., McCormick, D.M., 1995. Shoreline oiling
conditions in prince william sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In: Wells, P.
G., Butler, J.N., Hughes, J.S. (Eds.), Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in
Alaskan Waters. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 312–346.
Nomack, M., Cleveland, C., 2010. Oil Spill Control Technologies in: Encyclopedia of
Earth accessed 9.25.2019. http://www.eoearth.org/articles/view/158385/?topi
c=50366.
Nyankson, E., Rodene, D., Gupta, R.B., 2015. Advancements in crude oil spill
remediation research after the deepwater Horizon oil spill. Water, air. & Soil
Pollution 227, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2727-5.
O’Hara, P.D., Morandin, L.A., 2010. Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas
development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60,
672–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.12.008.
Obi, E.I., Kamgba, F., Obi, D., 2014. Techniques of oil spill response in the sea. IOSR J.
Appl. Phys. 6, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.9790/4861-06113641.
Ornitz, B., Champ, M., 2002. The technology windows-of-opportunity oil spill response
strategy. In: Champ, M. (Ed.), Oil Spills First Principles. Elsevier Science,
Netherlands, pp. 289–324.
Ossai, I.C., Ahmed, A., Hassan, A., Hamid, F.S., 2020. Remediation of soil and water
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon: a review. Environmental Technology &
Innovation 17, 100526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2019.100526.
Parker, H.D., Pitt, G.D., 2012. Pollution Control Instrumentation for Oil and Effluents.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Pham, V.H., Dickerson, J.H., 2014. Superhydrophobic silanized melamine sponges as
high efficiency oil absorbent materials. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, 14181–14188.
https://doi.org/10.1021/am503503m.
Potter, S., 2004. World Catalog of Oil Spill Response Products. SL Ross Environmental
Research Limited.
Reed, M., Johansen, Ø., Brandvik, P.J., Daling, P., Lewis, A., Fiocco, R., Mackay, D.,
Prentki, R., 1999. Oil spill modeling towards the close of the 20th century: overview
of the state of the art. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 5, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1353-2561(98)00029-2.
Rizvi, A., Chu, R.K., Lee, J.H., Park, C.B., 2014. Superhydrophobic and oleophilic open-
cell foams from fibrillar blends of polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene. ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, 21131–21140. https://doi.org/10.1021/am506006v.
Robotham, P.W.J., Gill, R.A., 1989. Input, behaviour and fates of petroleum
hydrocarbons. In: Green, J., Trett, M.W. (Eds.), The Fate and Effects of Oil in
Freshwater. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 41–79.
Rodin, M., Downs, M., Petterson, J., Russell, J., 1992. Community impacts resulting from
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6, 219–234. https://doi.org/
10.1177/108602669200600304.
16
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
Rodríguez-Trigo, G., Zock, J.P., Montes, I.I., 2007. Health effects of exposure to oil spills.
Arch. Bronconeumol. 43, 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1579-2129(07)
60141-4.
Rogowska, J., Namieśnik, J., 2010. Environmental implications of oil spills from shipping
accidents. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 206, 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4419-6260-7_5.
Samudro, G., Mangkoedihardjo, S., 2012. Assesment framework for remediation
technologies of oil polluted environment. Int. J. Acad. Res. 4, 36–39.
Schein, A., Scott, J.A., Mos, L., Hodson, P.V., 2009. Oil dispersion increases the apparent
bioavailability and toxicity of diesel to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-315.1.
Schmidt, H., 2013. Cleaning oil spills with paper mill sludge. accessed 9.17.2019. https:
//www.youris.com/environment/globalchangetv/cleaning_oil_spills_with_paper_mi
ll_sludge.kl.
Schultz, R., 1998. Oil Spill Response Performance Reveiw of Booms. ASTM International.
Sebastiao, P., Guedes Soares, C., 1998. Weathering of oil spills accounting for oil
components. In: Garcia-Martinez, R., Brebbia, C.A. (Eds.), Oil and Hydrocarbon
Spills — Modelling, Analysis and Control (OIL SPILL 98). Computational Mechanics
Publications, Southampton, UK, pp. 63–72.
Sivashanmugam, P., 2007. Basics of Environmental Science and Engineering. New India
Publishing.
Song, Y., Li, B., Yang, S., Ding, G., Zhang, C., Xie, X., 2015. Ultralight boron nitride
aerogels via template-assisted chemical vapor deposition. Sci. Rep. 5, 10337.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10337.
Sun, R.C., 2010. Cereal Straw as a Resource for Sustainable Biomaterials and Biofuels:
Chemistry, Extractives, Lignins, Hemicelluloses and Cellulose. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Swannell, R.P., Lee, K., McDonagh, M., 1996. Field evaluations of marine oil spill
bioremediation. Microbiol. Rev. 60, 342–365.
Tansel, B., 2013. Propagation of impacts after oil spills at sea: categorization and
quantification of local vs regional and immediate vs delayed impacts. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2013.11.001.
Tarr, M.A., Zito, P., Overton, E.B., Olson, G.M., Adhikari, P.L., Reddy, C.M., 2016.
Weathering of oil spilled in the marine environment. Oceanography 29, 126–135.
https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.77.
Tawfiq, N., Olsen, D.A., 1993. Saudi Arabia’s response to the 1991 Gulf oil spill. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 27, 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(93)90041-H.
Teas, C., Kalligeros, S., Zannikos, F., Stournas, S., Lois, E., Anastopoulos, G., 2001.
Investigation of the effectiveness of absorbent materials in oil spills clean up.
Desalination 140, 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00375-7.
Tewari, S., Sirvaiya, A., 2015. Oil spill remediation and its regulation. Int. J. Eng. Res.
Gen. Sci. 1, 1–7.
Tkalich, P., Chan, E., 2002. Vertical mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 44, 1219–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00178-9.
Tkalich, P., Huda, K., Hoong Gin, K.Y., 2003. A multiphase oil spill model. J. Hydraul.
Res. 41, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221680309499955.
Troisi, G., Borjesson, L., Bexton, S., Robinson, I., 2007. Biomarkers of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH)-associated hemolytic anemia in oiled wildlife. Environ. Res.
105, 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2007.06.007.
Tsocalis, E.A., Kowenhoven, T., Perakis, A.N., 1992. A Survey of Classical and New
Marine Oil Spill Cleanup Response Methods. University of Michigan.
Venosa, A.D., Zhu, X., 2003. Biodegradation of crude oil contaminating marine
shorelines and freshwater wetlands. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 8, 163–178.
Ventikos, N.P., Vergetis, E., Psaraftis, H.N., Triantafyllou, G., 2004. A high-level
synthesis of oil spill response equipment and countermeasures. J. Hazard Mater. 107,
51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.11.009.
Violeau, D., Buvat, C., Abed-Meraim, K., de Nanteuil, E., 2007. Numerical modelling of
boom and oil spill with SPH. Coast Eng. 54, 895–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coastaleng.2007.06.001.
Vlaev, L., Petkov, P., Dimitrov, A., Genieva, S., 2011. Cleanup of water polluted with
crude oil or diesel fuel using rice husks ash. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of
Chemical Engineers 42, 957–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2011.04.004.
Vlahos, G.P., Alexopoulos, A.V., 1995. Techno-economical Aspects Concerning Maritime
Transport and the Protection of Marine Environment. Stamoulis Publications.
Walther, H.R.I., 2014. Clean up Techniques Used for Coastal Oil Spills: an Analysis of
Spills Occurring in Santa Barbara, California, Prince William Sound, Alaska, the Sea
of Japan, and the Gulf Coast. [Master’s Projects and Capstones. University of San
Francisco.
Wang, H., Wang, E., Liu, Z., Gao, D., Yuan, R., Sun, L., Zhu, Y., 2015. A novel carbon
nanotubes reinforced superhydrophobic and superoleophilic polyurethane sponge
for selective oil–water separation through a chemical fabrication. J. Mater. Chem. 3,
266–273. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA03945A.
Wang, J., Zheng, Y., Wang, A., 2012. Superhydrophobic kapok fiber oil-absorbent:
preparation and high oil absorbency. Chem. Eng. J. 213, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2012.09.116.
Wang, Z., Fingas, M., Blenkinsopp, S., Sergy, G., Landriault, M., Sigouin, L., Foght, J.,
Semple, K., Westlake, D.W.S., 1998. Comparison of oil composition changes due to
biodegradation and physical weathering in different oils. J. Chromatogr. A 809,
89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(98)00166-6.
Warner, A., Cathey, D., Cullen, G., Kasper, P., Lumpkin, A., Nelson, J., 2017.
Development of the Electromagnetic Boom and MOP System (EMOP), 6th
International Beam Instrumentation Conference, IBIC2017. JACOW, Geneva,
Switzerland, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 304–308.
Whiteside, S.E., 1993. Biodegradation Studies of Saudi Arabian Crude Oil, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston,
Texas.
A. Dhaka and P. Chattopadhyay
Wright, L., Braun, S., 2020. Oil Spill Disasters: Ways to Limit Environmental Damage
accessed 2.19.2021. https://www.dw.com/en/mauritius-oil-spill-disaster-tanker/a
-48095315.
Xhelilaj, E., Sinanaj, S., 2010. The behaviour and effects of oil pollution into marine
environment and oceans. Scientific Journal of Maritime Research 24, 19–26.
Yang, C., Kaipa, U., Mather, Q.Z., Wang, X., Nesterov, V., Venero, A.F., Omary, M.A.,
2011. Fluorous metal-organic frameworks with superior adsorption and hydrophobic
properties toward oil spill cleanup and hydrocarbon storage. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133,
18094–18097. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja208408n.
Yuan, X., Chung, T.C.M., 2012. Novel solution to oil spill recovery: using
thermodegradable polyolefin oil superabsorbent polymer (Oil–SAP). Energy Fuel.
26, 4896–4902. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef300388h.
Yuewen, D., Adzigbli, L., 2018. Assessing the impact of oil spills on marine organisms.
Journal of Oceanography and Marine Research 6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2572-
3103.1000179.
17
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112428
Zhao, Y., Ding, M., Chen, D., 2005. Adsorption properties of mesoporous silicas for
organic pollutants in water. Anal. Chim. Acta 542, 193–198 https://doi.org/
10.1016j.aca.2005.04.005.
Zhu, H., Qiu, S., Jiang, W., Wu, D., Zhang, C., 2011. Evaluation of electrospun polyvinyl
chloride/polystyrene fibers as sorbent materials for oil spill cleanup. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45, 4527–4531. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2002343.
Zhu, S., Strunin, D., 2001. Modelling the confinement of spilled oil with floating booms.
Appl. Math. Model. 25, 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0307-904X(01)00008-
7.
Zock, J.-P., Rodríguez-Trigo, G., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, E., Souto-Alonso, A., Espinosa, A.,
Pozo-Rodríguez, F., Gómez, F.P., Fuster, C., Castaño-Vinyals, G., Antó, J.M.,
Barberà, J.A., 2014. Evaluation of the persistence of functional and biological
respiratory health effects in clean-up workers 6years after the Prestige oil spill.
Environ. Int. 62, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.09.020.