User:Jechma/sandbox

ONLINE MONITORING IN COASTAL AREAS
When talking about online monitoring, timescale definition is important. One must differentiate between “real” online monitoring (what can be done with a thermometer type sensor, a set-point and a sound and/or visual alarm systems), that is to keep a close eye on a situation and follow information minutes after minutes and “nearly-real” (refresh every 6, 12 or 24h) online monitoring. Briefly speaking, one could say that •	the former is aimed at immediately correcting acute problems with a very short response time. In a port for example, it is essentially associated with relatively high amounts of contaminants, most often visible by naked eyes. We may call it an “Early Warning Indicator”. •	the later is also aimed at correcting problems but the time constant is longer. It is mainly associated with much lower concentrations, often not visible by naked eyes. It must improve the capability of providing evidence for man-made causes, interpreting and predicting the reactions of ecosystems correctly and producing good practices aimed at avoiding problems. Both are evidently essential for policy and management. Both are designed for automated environmental health monitoring. They can be performed alone but it is much more fruitfull to integrate them in much larger monitoring programs (Moore et al. 2004; Depledge, 2009).

There are key questions:
 * What are the most frequently spilled pollutants?
 * What is monitored today? How is it done?
 * What kind of new online monitoring strategies should be better developed in the future.
 * Internet-based monitoring and reporting for situational awareness

What are the most frequently spilled pollutants in port areas?
Although any kind of contaminants or chemicals can end up in port water, the experience shows that the most common pollutants spilled in ports and harbors belong to the following families of products (CEDRE, 2007):
 * diesel and similar products: light marine diesel, marine diesel oil (MDO), domestic fuel oil, fuel residue...
 * heavy products: heavy fuel oil (for boilers or bunker fuel – IFO 180 or 380 – Intermediate Fuel Oil with a maximum dynamic viscosity of 180 or 380 centistokes at 50°C); heavy, medium or light crude oil; lubricating oil, often used; vegetable oil…
 * petrol and similar products: motor vehicle petrol, premium petrol, super unleaded, kerosene, JET A1, jet fuel…
 * potentially hazardous chemicals or petrochemical substances, in particular acids (sulphuric, hydrochloric, phosphoric, nitric or acetic acid), bases (ammonia, soda), fertilisers and phytosanitary products (pesticides, insecticides, weed killer), petrochemical products...
 * antifouling paints which are chemical/ usually hydrocarbon based.
 * biological contaminants contained in ballast waters and ballast sediments (ETC, 1996; International convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments, 2004).

Fast detection and response are key components of managing spills. Undetected and uncontrolled spills can result in major environmental impacts and poor public image. This can include extremely high response costs.

Generic oceanographic parameters
An overview of the online monitored parameters actually present in or around European Atlantic harbors shows that they are essentially what could be named generic parameters. If one checks the usual data that can be recorded at sea, they are: Temperature, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, sound velocity, fluorescence, light (PAR), oxygen, pH, flow velocity, pressure (wave/tide gauges), current speed and direction. Today, the SEABIRD probe is still actually the world wide recognized high precision CTD oceanographic probe. But these basic parameters, highly relevant in oceanography are not directly related to direct detection of pollutants in port areas although they give fundamental information on the trajectory a spill can follow and the global seawater status. Importantly, if one focused on what can be maintained offshore (by buoys) without frequent maintenance and calibration procedure (i.e. for months), the available parameters are mainly reduced to temperature and pressure (wave and tide indicators), current speed and direction, wind speed and direction. If one considers onshore monitoring, the situation is different as the problem of power and energy supply can be avoided and the calibration procedures are less suffering from the offshore difficulties. It regularly requires human interventions for emergency problems. Turbidity, oxygen, salinity, tide level and temperature are successfully measured (sampling rate: 1 shot /10 min). A series of 4 onshore monitoring devices developed by Ifremer (Stations MAREL, France) are working successfully on the Gironde estuary, France, down and upstream of the port of Bordeaux, since 2004. The basic frequency for the maintenance is theoretically 4/year but in practice, 8/year is more realistic. Ifremer, the French institute of maritime research, deployed with some success a new generation of oceanographic buoys since a few years, clearly less expensive that the previous ones (Smatch NKE). The results can be published online.

Presence of oil
One can define two contrasting situations according to the concentration of this specific contaminants: large and/or visible spills with trace pollution (silent pollution).


 * Large and/or visible spills


 * Automated oil spill detection system

Oil spill presence is mostly seen by sighting sheen on the water surface. There is no efficient direct in-situ measurement of oil concentration at sea except some experimental devices without present field application. Ultraviolet fluorescence and light scattering are two analytical methods commonly used in instrumentation for online measurement of oils in the field. UV fluorescence based instruments detect both dissolved and emulsified aromatic constituents of oils. Light scattering based instruments measure optical scattering induced by emulsified oil droplet. A major technical challenge for each method is to maintain quantitative accuracy in the presence of chemical and physical interferences, including fluorescent organic compounds (detergent and natural organic matter), suspended solid particles, dissolved salts, etc. (He et al., 2000). Nevertheless Katz and Gauthier (2007) reported an unacceptably high frequency of false alarms in existing systems that proves to be problematic.
 * Human detection and reporting

In the experience of harbors, reports from any sectors of the population are considered as very efficient (human “biomonitoring”). The experience shows that Port Authority tend to rapidly know when oil pollution is present as it is generally get reported by the ship that is receiving bunker fuel for example. Leaks are also reported, as are casualty ships leaking oil. Also pollution is mostly visually spotted by many harbor users and then reported to the Port Authority. The limitation here of course is during the night where oil cannot be seen but ships will report any (or most) errors. Note that the US Navy solved this specific problem by prohibiting night fuelling. Thus an efficient and effective way to monitor and to know if there is an oil pollution incident in a port is to encourage those that caused it to report it in a timely way. They must evidently have the knowledge to know who to report it to immediately. Specific electrodes do exist and are presently developed for use under laboratory conditions. They are quite often fragile and their use in the field, when feasible, requires the skill of specialized personnel. Strong efforts are presently produced to build field systems. It must combine robustness, long term stability and accuracy that is a difficult goal to achieve. As far as oil derived contaminants are concerned, their sensitivity is today, even under laboratory conditions, rarely high enough to reach the required standards. What is certainly required here is a system with high enough sensitivity to help reduce chronic water contamination. The chemical and physical principles for the detection, identification, and quantification of fuel/oil products appear to be well understood. Table-top equipment based on optical technologies (in visible, infrared, and ultraviolet spectral regimes), chromatography, and mass spectrometry are available. It is required to adapt them in a cost effective manner in field equipment based on these well-known principles. Useful attributes for the proposed solution include ruggedness and remote sensing capability as suggested by the US Navy to battle oil spills (Katz and Gauthier, 2007).
 * Trace (silent) pollution.
 * Trace (silent) pollution.

Online biomonitoring
Beside human detection and reporting (that can be taken as a specific type of biomonitoring, see above), the use of aquatic organisms as biosensors, is an old idea but the recent development in technology makes it more and more promising and certainly efficient. It can detect large spills but its major power is the detection of silent pollutions. The basic idea is that there are many possible variations with chemical toxicity. Chemical compounds are forming and mutating and, depending on the water composition, one can get a wide variety of toxic material. In this view, biomonitoring could be an interesting possibility because it is essentially generalist and allows the search for any type of contaminant, without a prior knowledge of its name and putative presence. Indeed, the interest with animals is that they can detect any type of toxicity because they have a broad detection range. In addition, biomonitoring can be a 1st stage decision maker and tell if the molecule, at its actual concentration, already exhibits a potential toxic effect. In terms of trace pollution, it is anticipated that in situ biological testing strategies will play an increasingly important role in aquatic risk characterization and management (Rosen et al. 2009). As far as freshwaters are concerned, numerous and various systems have been developed during the 70’s for establishing real-time monitoring biosensors (see for example Gerhardt et al. 2006). Under marine conditions, the number of available online techniques is much more reduced. A key point is direct in-situ recording rather than seaside units and a full respect of the natural sensor behaviour as online biomonitors frequently use it as endpoint. To our knowledge, the main system is based on recording the behaviour of molluscan bivalves. When connected online through internet, it provides information in a time frame appropriate to rapidly detect harmful substances in the environment. The technique relates bivalve behavior, specifically shell gaping activity, to pollutants. The basic concept is that when bivalves detect a pollutant, they close or open their valves or express abnormal valve movements. Their natural rhythms of activity (initially drive by tide and day-night alternation) can be altered. Following extreme situations, the animals die and their valves remain open and motionless. By fitting electrodes on each shell, the distance between valves can be continuously recorded that is a way to read the health of both the bivalves and their environment. Today, two systems are commercially available. They are the Mosselmonitor and the MolluSCAN eye. The MolluSCAN Eye is build to work at sea, without human intervention, for long periods of time (≥ 1 year). It has been working in various places in France (since 2006), Norway, Spain, Russia, Svalbard (Ny Alesund) and New Caledonia (Southern lagoon). The major limit is evidently a pollution important enough to kill all animals which stops the recordings by destroying the sensing element. The MolluSCAN Eye allows the monitoring of bivalve behavior anyplace in the world using cellular, internet or satellite networks to transmit information. It has been shown as operationally insensitive to fluctuations in temperature, sea state and wind conditions (Tropical cyclone level). Importantly, both systems (the Mosselmonitor and the MolluSCAN Eye) have accumulated several years of understanding of bivalve behavior in temperate and tropical regions and high ranked scientific papers were published. A third system, the Biota Guard system is still under development. It aims at measuring closing and heart rhythm in blue mussels. It is presently oriented towards the oil industry as a system that should help offshore operators meet zero outlet demands. So it is claim to be build for real time environmental effect of production operations by oil companies. It could certainly have useful applications in harbours once it will be operational.