Advertisement

Copper Biocides in the Marine Environment

  • Steven J. Brooks
  • Mike Waldock

Due to the restrictions on TBT usage in antifouling paints since 2003 and its complete ban on all vessels in 2008 (IMO 2001), copper has been increasingly used as the main biocide ingredient in antifouling paint coatings. Copper is toxic to a wide range of aquatic organisms, which makes it an ideal biocide, preventing the colonisation of biofouling organisms on the vessel surface. There has been much concern from regulators and scientists that copper concentrations may become elevated in areas of high boating density such as marinas and estuaries with potential damaging effects on the animal and plant communities. In certain European countries, copper has been banned from use on recreational vessels, although so far this is restricted to inland freshwaters, many countries are beginning to re-evaluate current copper risk assessments in marine coastal waters.

This chapter provides an outline of the concentrations of copper in the marine coastal environment as a result of its use as an antifouling biocide. The potential risk of copper to marine life has been evaluated with respect to copper bioavail ability, speciation and toxicity. The chapter outlines some of the shortfalls of current copper risk assessment and provides some suggestions for improvement.

Keywords

Suspended Particulate Matter Copper Concentration International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Paint Copper Toxicity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen HE, Hansen DJ (1996) The importance of trace metal speciation to water quality criteria. Water Environ Res 68:42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold WR (2004) Effects of dissolved organic carbon on copper toxicity: implications for saltwater copper criteria. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold WR, Santore RC, Cotsifas JS (2005) Predicting copper toxicity in estuarine and marine waters using the biotic ligand model. Mar Pollut Bull 50:1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (2000) Standard test method for copper release rates of antifouling coating systems in seawater. ASTM Method D6442–6499.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks SJ (2006) Copper speciation in samples collected from a Finnish marina. Cefas contract report CEFAS/PRO/C2415.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks SJ, Bolam T, Tolhurst L et al. (2007) The effects of dissolved organic carbon on the toxicity of copper to the developing embryos of the pacific oyster,Crassostrea gigas. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1756–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks SJ, Bolam T, Tolhurst L et al. (2008) Dissolved organic carbon reduces the toxicity of copper to germlings of the macroalgae,Fucus vesiculosus. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 70: 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryan GW, Gibbs PE (1983) Heavy metals in the Fal Estuary, Cornwall: a study of long-term contamination by mining waste and its effects on estuarine organisms. Mar Biol Assoc UK (occ publ 2):1–112.Google Scholar
  9. Bryan G. W, Gibbs PE, Huggett RJ et al. (1989) Effects of tributyltin pollution on the mud snail,Ilyanassa obsoleta, from the York river and Sarah creek, Chesapeake bay. Mar Pollut Bull 20:458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi SC, Wai OWH, Choi TWH et al. (2006) Distribution of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and zinc in marine sediments in Hong Kong waters. Environ Geol 51:455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conlan KE (1994) Amphipod crustaceans and environmental disturbance: a review. J Nat Hist 28:519–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Croot PL, Moffett JW, Brand LE (2000) Production of extracellular Cu complexing ligands by eucaryotic phytoplankton in response to Cu stress. Limnol Oceanogr 45:619–627.Google Scholar
  13. Dallinger R (1977) The flow of copper through a terrestrial food chain III. Selection of an optimum copper diet by isopods. Oceologia 30:273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Toro DM, Allen HE, Bergmann HL et al. (2001) Biotic Ligand Model of the acute toxicity of metals. 1. Technical basis. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2383–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elzvik A, Hanze K (1992) Ecotoxicological evaluation of copper in antifouling paints. Copper cuprous oxide, cuprous thiocyanate. National Chemicals Inspectorate.Google Scholar
  16. Erickson RJ, Benoit DA, Mattson VR et al. (1996) The effects of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EU Risk Assessment – [Copper, Copper II Sulphate pentahydrate, Copper(I)oxide, Copper(II) oxide, Dicopper chloride trihydroxide] CAS [7440–50–8, 7758–98–7, 1317–3–1, 1317–38–0, 1332–65–6]. Voluntary risk assessment. European copper Institute, in press.Google Scholar
  18. Florence TM, Stauber JL (1986) Toxicity of copper complexes to the marine diatomNitzschia closterium. Aquat Toxicol 8:11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Florence T, Powell H, Stauber J et al. (1992) Toxicity of lipid-soluble copper(II) complexes to the marine diatomNitzschia closterium: amelioration by humic substances. Water Res 26: 1187–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gouvêa SP, Vieira AAH, Lombardi AT (2005) Copper and cadmium complexation by high molecular weight materials of dominant microalgae and of water from a eutrophic reservoir. Chemosphere 60:1332–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall LW, Anderson RD (1999) A deterministic ecological risk assessment for copper in European saltwater environments. Mar Pollut Bull 38:207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hassall M, Dangerfield JM (1990) Density dependant processes in the population dynamics ofAramadillium vulgare(Isopoda: Oniscidae). J Anim Ecol 59:941–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henry RP (1996) Multiple roles of carbonic anhydrase in cellular transport and metabolism. Annu Rev physiol 58:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (1999) Evaluation on: Copper compounds. 1st review of their use in antifouling products. Prepared by: The Health and Safety Executive. Biocides and pesticides assessment unit. Magdalen House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle, Merseyside, L20 3QZ. Advisory committee on pesticides. Issue No 183.Google Scholar
  25. International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2001) International conference on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, adoption of the final act of the conference and any instruments, recommendations and resolutions resulting from the work of the conference 18 October 2001. IMO Headquarters, London, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Jones B, Bolam T (2007) Copper speciation survey from UK marinas, harbours and estuaries. Mar Pollut Bull 54:1127–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones B, Bolam T, Waldock M (2005) The speciation of copper in samples collected from the marine environment. Cefas Report study number: CEFAS/PRO/C1385, 127 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Karel AC, de Schamphelaere Janssen CR (2001) A biotic ligand model predicting acute copper toxicity forDaphnia magna: the effects of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and pH. Environ Sci Technol 36:48–54.Google Scholar
  29. Lombardi AT, Vieira AAH (1998) Copper and lead complexation by high molecular weight compounds produced bySynurasp. (Chrysophyceae). Phycologia 37:34–39.Google Scholar
  30. Lorenzo JI, Nieto O, Beiras R (2006) Anodic stripping voltammetry measures copper bioavailability for sea urchin larvae in the presence of fulvic acids. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma H, Kim SD, Cha DK et al. (1999) Effect of kinetics of complexation by fulvic acid on toxicity of copper toCeriodaphnia dubia. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:828–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacRae et al. (1998) In: Syke, environmental hazard assessment of copper in antifouling paints. Finnish Environmental Institute, Sanna Koivisto. pp 66.Google Scholar
  33. MacRae RK, Smith DE, Swoboda-Colberg N et al. (1999) Copper binding affinity of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) gills: Implications for assessing the bioavailable metal. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1180–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moffett JW, Brand LE (1996) Production of strong, extracellular Cu chelators by marine cyano-bacteria in response to Cu stress. Limnol Oceanogr 41:388–395.Google Scholar
  35. Noblet JA, Zeng EY, Baird R et al. (2002) Regional monitoring program: VI Sediment Chemistry, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Pagenkopf GK (1983) Gill surface interaction model for trace-metal toxicity to fishes: role of complexation, pH, and water hardness. Environ Sci Technol 17:342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pérez M, Blustein G, García M et al. (2006) Cupric tannate: A low copper content antifouling pigment. Prog Org Coat 55:311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Playle RC, Dixon DG, Burnison K (1993a) Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills: Modification by dissolved organic carbon and synthetic ligands. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2667–2677.Google Scholar
  39. Playle RC, Dixon DG, Burnison K (1993b) Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills: Estimates of metal-gill stability constants and modelling of metal accumulation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2678–2687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roper WL (1990) Toxicological profile for copper. Sponsor – US agency for toxic substances and disease registry. Contract House – Syracuse Research Corporation, published by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA , USA.Google Scholar
  41. Sanders BM, Jenkins KD, Sunda WG et al. (1983) Free cupric ion activity in seawater: effects on metallothionein and growth in crab larvae. Science 222:53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Santore RC, Driscoll CT (1995) The CHESS model for calculating equilibria in soils and solutions, chemical equilibrium and reaction models. In: Loeppert R, Schwab AP, Goldberg S. (Eds), Chemical Equilibrium and Reaction Models. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 357–375.Google Scholar
  43. Santore RC, Di Toro DM, Paquin PR et al. (2001) Biotic ligand model on the acute toxicity of metals. 2. Application to the acute copper toxicity to freshwater fish andDaphnia. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2397–2402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiff K, Brown JB, Diehl D et al. (2007) Extent and magnitude of copper contamination in marinas of the San Diego region, California, USA. Mar Pollut Bull 54:322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skrabal SA, Donat JR, Burdige DJ (1997) Fluxes of copper complexing ligands from estuarine sediments. Limnol Ocenaogr 42:992–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith RM, Martell AE (1976) Critical Stability Constants. IV. Inorganic Complexes. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Smith AJ, Thain JE, Barry J (2006) Exploring the use of cagedNucella lapillusto monitor changes to TBT hotspot areas: a trail in the River Tyne estuary (UK). Mar Environ Res 62:149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1996) Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Thain JE (1986) Toxicity of TBT to bivalves: effects on reproduction, growth and survival. Proceedings of the organotin symposium of the oceans’86 conference. Washington, DC, September 23–25, 1986, vol. 4. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1306–1313.Google Scholar
  50. Thain JE, Waldock MJ (1986) The impact of tributyltin (TBT) antifouling paints on molluscan fisheries. Water Sci Technol 18:193–202.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas KV, Raymond K, Chadwick J et al. (1999) The effects of short-term changes in environmental parameters on the release of biocides from antifouling coatings: cuprous oxide and tributyltin. Appl Organomet Chem 13:453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tipping E (1994) WHAM-a chemical equilibrium model and computer code for waters, sediments, and soils incorporating a discrete site/electrostatic model of ion-binding by humic substances. Comput Geosci 20:973–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1985) Ambient water quality criteria for copper. Office of water regulations and standards, criteria and standards division. Washington, DC, EPA 440/5-84-031.Google Scholar
  54. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2003) Draft update of ambient water quality criteria for copper. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-03-026.Google Scholar
  55. Valkirs AO, Seligman PF, Haslbeck E et al. (2003) Measurement of copper release rates from antifouling paint under laboratory and in situ conditions: implications for loading estimates to marine water bodies. Mar Pollut Bull 46:763–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van den Berg CMG (1982) Determination of copper complexation with natural organic ligands in seawater by equilibration with MnO2 II. Experimental procedures and application to surface seawater. Mar Chem 11:323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van den Berg CMG (1984) Organic and inorganic speciation of copper in the Irish Sea. Mar Chem 14:201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Hattum B, Baart AC, Boon JG (2002) Computer model to generate predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) for antifouling products in the marine environment. 2nd edition accompanying the release of Mam-Pec version 1.4, Report number E-02-04/Z 3117.Google Scholar
  59. Yebra DM, Kiil S, Dam-Johansen K (2004) Antifouling technology – past, present and future steps towards efficient and environmentally friendly antifouling coatings. Prog Org Coat 50:75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zamunda CD, Sunda WG (1982) Bioavailability of dissolved copper to the American oysterCrassostrea virginica. I. Importance of chemical speciation. Mar Biol 66:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zirino A, Belli SL, Van der Weele DA (1998) Copper concentration and CuII activity in San Diego Bay. Electroanalysis 10:423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Brooks
    • 1
  • Mike Waldock
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian Institute of Water Research (NIVA)Norway
  2. 2.Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Fish Diseases LaboratoryWeymouthUK

Personalised recommendations