Solidifiers are not toxic and float on water surface and remove easily unlike
sorbents but their application is limited to confined spaces like near coastlines, while
they are usable in rough sea conditions. The solidifier performance depends on
operational conditions (temperature, agitation, and contact time between oil and
solidifier) and oil properties (composition, viscosity, and surface area), especially the
type and composition of spilled oil and slicks (Motta et al. 2018; Adebajo et al. 2003).
Delaune et al. (1999) investigated the effectiveness of granular solidifier to
remediate South Louisiana crude oil in Coastal Wetlands. These researchers efforted
to rectify the lake of solidifier’s application in a large-scale spill. Over 70% of the
crude was recovered by spraying solidifiers over the water surface. The solidified oil
was very cohesive, firm, and with no fracture. The results emphasized that the
granular solidifier can be used in a large-scale spill like open water with high
removal efficiency and solidified oil can be easily removed by either hand or
mechanical means.
To improve solidifier effectiveness at various environmental conditions, the
effects of type of solidifier and oil and salinity of water were investigated
(Sundaravadivelu et al. 2016b). In addition, some operational conditions like mixing
energy, solidifier–oil ratio on the removal efficiency of solidifiers were discussed.
Five solidifiers and three types of oil (Arabian light crude, Prudhoe Bay crude, and
Intermediate Fuel Oil 180) were used in these experiments.
The results showed that the salinity of water had no effect on the oil removal.
While an increase in the mixing speed from 0 to 60 rpm enhanced the removal
efficiency for medium crude but the higher speed (120 rpm) had no benefit effect on
it. The mixing speed did not change the removal efficiency for light and heavy
crudes. The product type and solidifier–oil ratio had a significant effect on the
solidifiers’ performances. The removal efficiencies were about 80% for Arabian
light crude and Prudhoe Bay crude crudes while it was 60% for Intermediate Fuel Oil
180 crude at 1:2 solidifier–oil ratios. In these conditions, the highest removal
efficiencies were obtained for Waste-Set #3200® solidifier while Rubberizer had
the lowest removal. Moreover, the best and worst performances were observed for
Waste-Set #3200® and Rubberizer, respectively, at 1:8 solidifier–oil ratio.
In another study, the physical and chemical characteristics of 12 oil solidifiers were
measured and correlated to define a good solidifier (Sundaravadivelu et al. 2016a).
They observed the best removal performance for solidifiers with a carbonate group
with a pore size >5 mm and bulk densities <0.3 g/cm
3
. The polymeric solidifiers like
Oil Bond, Waste-Set #3200, Rubberizer, and Imbiber Beads had up to 75% removal
efficiency at 1:2 solidifier–oil ratio. The bulk density had a main impact on the removal
efficiency so that the greatest removal efficiency was observed for the lowest bulk
density solidifiers. Moreover, the solidifiers with small grain size were able to form a
mat-like solidified oil, which was easily collected. Table 12.2 presents the summary of
some researches, which have investigated the effects of properties of solidifiers and
solidified oil on the solidifier’s performance.
The efficiency of chemical agents is strongly influenced by operational conditions
and oil properties. Sometimes, these agents are toxic to marine ecosystem as well as
spilled oil. On the other hand, they have high oil removal efficiency and protect
marine habitat by changing the chemical and physical properties of spilled oil.
406
M. Fatehi et al.
sorbents but their application is limited to confined spaces like near coastlines, while
they are usable in rough sea conditions. The solidifier performance depends on
operational conditions (temperature, agitation, and contact time between oil and
solidifier) and oil properties (composition, viscosity, and surface area), especially the
type and composition of spilled oil and slicks (Motta et al. 2018; Adebajo et al. 2003).
Delaune et al. (1999) investigated the effectiveness of granular solidifier to
remediate South Louisiana crude oil in Coastal Wetlands. These researchers efforted
to rectify the lake of solidifier’s application in a large-scale spill. Over 70% of the
crude was recovered by spraying solidifiers over the water surface. The solidified oil
was very cohesive, firm, and with no fracture. The results emphasized that the
granular solidifier can be used in a large-scale spill like open water with high
removal efficiency and solidified oil can be easily removed by either hand or
mechanical means.
To improve solidifier effectiveness at various environmental conditions, the
effects of type of solidifier and oil and salinity of water were investigated
(Sundaravadivelu et al. 2016b). In addition, some operational conditions like mixing
energy, solidifier–oil ratio on the removal efficiency of solidifiers were discussed.
Five solidifiers and three types of oil (Arabian light crude, Prudhoe Bay crude, and
Intermediate Fuel Oil 180) were used in these experiments.
The results showed that the salinity of water had no effect on the oil removal.
While an increase in the mixing speed from 0 to 60 rpm enhanced the removal
efficiency for medium crude but the higher speed (120 rpm) had no benefit effect on
it. The mixing speed did not change the removal efficiency for light and heavy
crudes. The product type and solidifier–oil ratio had a significant effect on the
solidifiers’ performances. The removal efficiencies were about 80% for Arabian
light crude and Prudhoe Bay crude crudes while it was 60% for Intermediate Fuel Oil
180 crude at 1:2 solidifier–oil ratios. In these conditions, the highest removal
efficiencies were obtained for Waste-Set #3200® solidifier while Rubberizer had
the lowest removal. Moreover, the best and worst performances were observed for
Waste-Set #3200® and Rubberizer, respectively, at 1:8 solidifier–oil ratio.
In another study, the physical and chemical characteristics of 12 oil solidifiers were
measured and correlated to define a good solidifier (Sundaravadivelu et al. 2016a).
They observed the best removal performance for solidifiers with a carbonate group
with a pore size >5 mm and bulk densities <0.3 g/cm
3
. The polymeric solidifiers like
Oil Bond, Waste-Set #3200, Rubberizer, and Imbiber Beads had up to 75% removal
efficiency at 1:2 solidifier–oil ratio. The bulk density had a main impact on the removal
efficiency so that the greatest removal efficiency was observed for the lowest bulk
density solidifiers. Moreover, the solidifiers with small grain size were able to form a
mat-like solidified oil, which was easily collected. Table 12.2 presents the summary of
some researches, which have investigated the effects of properties of solidifiers and
solidified oil on the solidifier’s performance.
The efficiency of chemical agents is strongly influenced by operational conditions
and oil properties. Sometimes, these agents are toxic to marine ecosystem as well as
spilled oil. On the other hand, they have high oil removal efficiency and protect
marine habitat by changing the chemical and physical properties of spilled oil.
406
M. Fatehi et al.