Scholarly article on topic 'Chemical contaminants entering the marine environment from sea-based sources: A review with a focus on European seas'

Chemical contaminants entering the marine environment from sea-based sources: A review with a focus on European seas Academic research paper on "Chemical sciences"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Marine Pollution Bulletin
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Contaminants / Pollutants / "Sea-based sources" / "Marine Strategy Framework Directive" / "Regional Sea Conventions" / Review}

Abstract of research paper on Chemical sciences, author of scientific article — Victoria Tornero, Georg Hanke

Abstract Anthropogenic contaminants reach the marine environment mostly directly from land-based sources, but there are cases in which they are emitted or re-mobilized in the marine environment itself. This paper reviews the literature, with a predominant focus on the European environment, to compile a list of contaminants potentially released into the sea from sea-based sources and provide an overview of their consideration under existing EU regulatory frameworks. The resulting list contains 276 substances and for some of them (22 antifouling biocides, 32 aquaculture medicinal products and 34 warfare agents) concentrations and toxicity data are additionally provided. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptor 8, together with the Water Framework Directive and the Regional Sea Conventions, provides the provisions against pollution of marine waters by chemical substances. This literature review should inform about the current state of knowledge regarding marine contaminant sources and provide support for setting-up of monitoring approaches, including hotspots screening.

Academic research paper on topic "Chemical contaminants entering the marine environment from sea-based sources: A review with a focus on European seas"

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

MPB-07855; No of Pages 22

Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul Si MABIWE POIXOTTBON BumxETiM

Review

Chemical contaminants entering the marine environment from sea-based sources: A review with a focus on European seas

Victoria Tornero *, Georg Hanke

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES), Water Resources Unit, Enrico Fermi 2749,21027 Ispra, Italy

ABSTRACT

Anthropogenic contaminants reach the marine environment mostly directly from land-based sources, but there are cases in which they are emitted or re-mobilized in the marine environment itself. This paper reviews the literature, with a predominant focus on the European environment, to compile a list of contaminants potentially released into the sea from sea-based sources and provide an overview of their consideration under existing EU regulatory frameworks. The resulting list contains 276 substances and for some of them (22 antifouling biocides, 32 aquaculture medicinal products and 34 warfare agents) concentrations and toxicity data are additionally provided. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptor 8, together with the Water Framework Directive and the Regional Sea Conventions, provides the provisions against pollution of marine waters by chemical substances. This literature review should inform about the current state of knowledge regarding marine contaminant sources and provide support for setting-up of monitoring approaches, including hotspots screening.

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................0

2. Approach................................................................................................................................0

3. Sea-based activities resulting in the release of contaminants into the marine environment........................................................0

3.1. Shipping..........................................................................................................................0

3.1.1. Accidental spillage..........................................................................................................0

3.1.2. Operational discharges......................................................................................................0

3.1.3. Emissions from antifouling paints............................................................................................0

3.2. Mariculture........................................................................................................................0

3.2.1. Medicinal products........................................................................................................0

3.2.2. Food additives and contaminants............................................................................................0

3.2.3. Antifouling biocides........................................................................................................0

3.3. Offshore activities..................................................................................................................0

3.3.1. Offshore oil and gas exploration and production..............................................................................0

3.3.2. Other offshore installations..................................................................................................0

3.4. Seabed mining......................................................................................................................0

3.5. Dredging of sediment and dumping at sea............................................................................................0

3.5.1. Emissions from historical dumping sites......................................................................................0

3.6. Other sea-based activities............................................................................................................0

4. Results and conclusions....................................................................................................................0

References....................................................................................................................................0

1. Introduction

Contamination caused by hazardous substances is a major environ-

» Corresponding author. mental concern in European waters and consequently is addressed by

E-mail address: victoria.tDrnero@jrc.ec.europa.eu (V. Tornero). a number of EU legislative measures and policies. The Water Framework

http://dx.doi.org/mi 016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.091

0025-326X/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 8 April 2016

Received in revised form 22 June 2016

Accepted 27 June 2016

Available online xxxx

Keywords: Contaminants Pollutants Sea-based sources

Marine Strategy Framework Directive Regional Sea Conventions Review

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) provides for measures against chemical pollution of surface waters. There are two components - the selection and regulation of substances of EU-wide concern (priority substances, PS) as a means to assess the chemical status of water bodies up to 12 nautical miles from the straightened coastline, and the selection by Member States of substances of national or local concern (river basin specific pollutants, RBSP), which form part of the quality elements for "good ecological status". In 2001 a first list of 33 PS was adopted (Decision 2455/2001) and in 2008 the Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for those substances and eight other pollutants already regulated at EU level were set in the Directive 2008/105/EC (or EQS Directive), which was amended by the Directive 2013/39/EU.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) aims to provide an integrative marine environment status assessment and considers both coastal and offshore environment, thus overlapping with WFD for some parts of the marine environment. The approach taken on contaminants under MSFD Descriptor 8 "Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects" should, therefore, be properly integrated and aligned with the work on identification and review of PS and EQS under the WFD. The identification of substances which are not listed as WFD PS or RBSP, but entail a significant risk to the marine environment is part of the MSFD provisions (Commission Decision 2010/477/EU).

It has been suggested that harmonization in MSFD Descriptor 8 implementation would be improved by compiling a list of contaminants which pose a risk to, or via, the marine environment (Tornero et al., 2015). This process has to take into consideration the relevant provisions of the WFD for territorial and/or coastal waters, but also the activities of the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs), which cover EU marine regions or sub-regions: OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic), HELCOM (Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Baltic Sea), Barcelona Convention (Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean), and Bucharest Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea).

This paper reviews the available literature to provide a list of chemical substances that have been, are being or might be released into the marine environment through sea-based human activities, with an overview of the policies and regulations in place for their management and control within the EU. This review should improve the knowledge regarding substances that might occur in the marine environment. However, it is important to note that the substances have been listed without considering their toxicological properties and/or marine concentrations, and therefore this paper does not provide a risk assessment. The resulting list might support the setting-up of monitoring approaches, e.g. through target screening schemes, and thus help guide the selection of relevant substances for MSFD Descriptor 8 implementation.

2. Approach

The information has been gathered through an extensive review of the existing literature, mainly peer-reviewed papers and books, but also reports, assessments and proposals from RSCs and research projects, conference proceedings, and other literature regarding the occurrence of contaminants in marine waters, and with a special focus on the European environment. The paper first compiles the relevant contaminants on the basis of the sea-based human activities potentially resulting in their release into the marine environment. Contaminants entering the marine environment through atmospheric transport are beyond the scope of this review. For selected groups of identified substances (biocides in ship antifouling paints, medicinal products in the marine aquaculture industry, and main constituents of warfare material dumped at sea), specific information on their concentrations and toxic-ity in the marine environment is also compiled.

The gathered information is used to create a list of marine-relevant contaminants, which includes their chemical identity and major sea-based sources. This list also gives information on the relevant international regulations/legislations and RSC monitoring programmes which deal with those substances, thus allowing the analysis of their coverage in European marine waters.

3. Sea-based activities resulting in the release of contaminants into the marine environment

3.1. Shipping

Maritime traffic on the world's oceans has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, thus increasing the risk of pollution caused by shipping (Tournadre, 2014). Although environmental regulations are strict, particularly under the MARPOL Convention (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), polluting substances continue to be discharged into the sea, often illegally (EMSA, 2012).

3.1.1. Accidental spillage

3.1.1.1. Chemical spills. Shipping is the most important mode of transport for a significant number of chemicals, referred to as Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS), and defined as any substance other than oil, which if introduced into the marine environment is likely to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and other marine life, to damage amenities and/or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea (IMO, 2000).

It is estimated that about 2000 different chemicals used by man are regularly transported by sea, either in bulk or in packaged form, and the chemical seaborne trade is estimated to reach 215 million tonnes by 2015 (Purnell, 2009). According to the data compiled by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), incidents resulting in HNS release happen regularly in European waters (EMSA, 2007,2008,2009,2010). The ecological hazards involved in these spills are less recognized and understood than those involving oil pollution (Neuparth et al., 2011). It seems logical to think that the most commonly transported chemicals are the ones most likely to be involved in one incident, so updated information about transported chemicals would be a first step to be prepared for and reduce the risk from possible incidents (Sheahan et al., 2015). However, putting together a comprehensive list of chemicals such as this is complicated due to the high number and diversity of HNS. Moreover, the data on the chemical transportation volumes in the EU is limited and decentralized, and the exact quantities of different chemicals transported and spilled are often not available and/or accessible (Posti and Häkkinen, 2012; EMSA, 2013a). Despite this, there are some studies that have gathered very valuable information. Cunha et al. (2015) collected information on the behavior, fate, weathering, and impact of HNS spilled at sea around the world and converted it into a database that can be accessed by the general public. In Europe, the HASREP project (Response to Harmful Substances spilled at sea) identified the top 100 chemicals being transported in and along European waters and found that the 15 bulk HNSs most handled were palm and other vegetable oils, methanol, benzene and its mixtures, sodium hydroxide solution, xylenes, styrene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), molasses, ammonia, ethanol, phenol, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, acetic acid, and animal fat (HASREP, 2005). These chemicals were mostly the same as those most transported/handled in the Baltic Sea according to the Chembaltic project (Risks of Maritime Transportation of Chemicals in Baltic Sea) (Posti and Häkkinen, 2012). According to the EMSA analysis of significant HNS incidents, the most released substances during 1978-2013 in European waters were styrene, sulphuric acid, benzene, and phosphoric acid. Other released substances include methyl-ketone, propane, phenols, isopropyl alcohol, acrylonitrile, acetone, and compounds of potassium, zinc, calcium, barium, lead, and sodium (EMSA, 2013a).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 3

Many of those chemicals do have environmental hazard potential, although marine toxicological data are scarce for most of them (Neuparth et al., 2013; Hakkinen and Posti, 2014). It would be impractical to consider a full scientific ecotoxicological data survey for all those chemicals, so the prioritization of those HNS posing the highest risk to the marine environment would be needed to assist the preparedness and emergency response planning to a potential incident (Neuparth et al., 2012; Sheahan etal., 2015 ). A priority list of 23 chemicals was established in EU Atlantic waters in the context of the ARCOPOL platform (Atlantic Region-Coastal Pollution Response), based on the HNS volumes transported, the reported HNS incidents, the HNS physico-chemical properties and the toxicity to marine organisms (Neuparth et al., 2011). A similar survey was conducted through the RAMOCS project (Implementation of risk assessment methodologies for oil and chemical spills in the European marine environment), resulting in the identification of the top 20 ranking of HNS in European waters (Radovic et al., 2012).

3.1.1.2. Oil spills. Marine pollution caused by accidental spills is a well-known global concern. Oil tanker accidents account for 10-15% of all the oil that enters the ocean world-wide every year. Although there is evidence for decrease in number of maritime incidents, major accidental oil tanker spills (i.e. those >20,000 tonnes) still occur at irregular intervals in European waters (EEA, 2008).

The degree of the damage caused by an oil spill event will depend upon the quantity spilled, the chemicals involved and the sensitivity of the marine area impacted as well as the wind and weather conditions at the moment of the accident. Crude oil is not a single substance but it is composed of thousands of chemicals and its chemical composition changes dynamically after release into the environment. Moreover, there are thousands of different kinds of crude and refined oils (Coppock and Dziwenka, 2014). The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) often comprise up to 10% of the organic compounds in crude oil and can be used as tracer for the general distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons in the environment associated with a spill. Oil spills are also an importance source of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as hexane, heptane, octane, nonane, benzene-toluene-ethylben-zene-xylene isomers (BTEX), and other lighter substituted benzene compounds (Sammarco et al., 2013).

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in other components of petroleum, such as compounds containing nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen, acids, esters, ketones, phenols and metals such as iron, nickel, copper, chromium and vanadium (NRC, 2003). Despite their relatively low abundance, they may also cause harmful effects on the marine environment (Bennett and Larter, 2000).

Following an oil spill, several means of cleanup are used to reduce the overall impacts on marine ecosystems. While the primary spill response tool usually is to recover oil from the sea surface with various mechanical recovery devices, chemical dispersants can be used to transfer the oil from the sea surface to the water column, in the form of very small droplets and subsequent dilution into a very large volume of water, which facilitates the natural biodegradation process (EMSA, 2016). Chemical dispersant use can be regarded as adding another pollutant to the marine environment and, despite improvements in dispersant formulations, the toxicity of the dispersant/oil mixture to marine biota is often a major environmental concern (ITOPF, 2005).

Within the EU, the decision to apply dispersants as an oil spill response strategy lies entirely with the affected coastal Member State(s) and a number of countries may consider the option of using dispersants in an oil spill with certain reservations. Since 2005, EMSA publishes an "Inventory of national policies regarding the use of oil spill dispersants in the EU Member States", which is updated in regular intervals. Based on latest inventory published (EMSA, 2014), there are approximately 75 brands of dispersants approved for use in the EU/EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries. However, only 34 different dispersant brands are currently in stockpiles in Europe (EMSA, 2016).

All oil spill dispersants are composed of surfactants and solvents. Surfactants allow oil and water to mix easily and can be made by chemically combining fatty materials (e.g. vegetable oils) with more water-soluble materials (e.g. sugars). Typical surfactants in today's formulations include fatty acid esters or sorbitan esters (e.g. sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate), ethoxylated fatty acid esters (polyethylene glycols, PEGs) or ethoxylated sorbitan esters, and sodium di-isooctyl sulphosuccinate (DOSS). Solvents help keep the chemicals mixed and help them dissolve into the oil. Typical solvents include light petroleum distillates and glycol ethers (e.g. propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol, di-propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and di-propylene glycol monobutyl ether) (EMSA, 2010; Graham et al., 2016).

3.12. Operational discharges

Operational discharges relate to ship-based pollution that is not restricted to accidents and can to a very large extent be effectively avoided by the enforcement of existing regulations and the control, monitoring and surveillance of maritime traffic (Ferraro et al., 2009). Vessel-related operational pollution include releases of bilge water from machinery spaces and ballast water of fuel oil tanks. Although environmental regulations for these operations are quite strict, operational discharges are still frequent (EMSA, 2008; OSPAR, 2010a; Hassler, 2011).

The chronic pollution resulting from operational discharges is more difficult to assess than that caused by large catastrophic spills. Discharges are not limited to oil but also involve other contaminants such as detergents and cleaners, lubricants, and chemicals from refrigerating equipment and fire-extinguishers. The inventory of pollutants emitted can be valuable for evaluating their environmental impacts. However, this issue seems to have been practically overlooked by both researchers and the shipping industry and information on this regard is rather limited (Honkanen et al., 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2014). A survey conducted in 1988 in the North Sea found that the concentrations of certain target chemicals due to operational discharges from chemical tankers were extremely low and lower than prior the implementation of Annex II of MARPOL (Hurford et al., 1990). A later study, however, found very high dissolved concentrations of nonylphenol ethoxylates far offshore the Dutch coastal zone and related them to the use of surfactants to clean cargo ships at open sea (Jonkers et al., 2005).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) analyzed different operational discharge types from various vessel classes and provided a list with the detected pollutants that may have the potential to pose a risk to human health or the marine environment. This study found that copper and arsenic represented the greatest environmental concern in vessel discharges. Other contaminants included metals such as aluminum, iron, manganese, cadmium, lead and zinc, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) such as bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, VOCs such as benzene, and long- or short-chain nonylphenol and octylphenol ethoxylates (USEPA, 2010).

3.13. Emissions from antifouling paints

The accumulation of organisms on ships' hulls can reduce the performance of vessels and increase fuel consumption and so, biocides have been traditionally used in antifouling paints to prevent the growth of potential fouling organisms. However, the biocide release from a ship's hull can be harmful to non-target organisms. For many years the most widely used active component in antifouling paints was the organotin tributyltin (TBT), which has an endocrine disrupting effect, particularly on shellfish (Dafforn et al., 2011). Aglobal prohibition on the application ofTBT-paints was ratified in 2008, although TBT impacts are still of concern in some localized European coastal ecosystems (Sousa et al., 2009).

Biocides such as copper(l) salts, mainly in the form of copper oxide (Cu2O) and copper thiocyanate (CuCHNS), have been the main alternatives to TBT in many antifouling coatings. Copper losses at sea from coatings of moving ships are considered as a significant and increasing anthropogenic source of copper to the aquatic environment (OSPAR,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

2010a). Although much less toxic than TBT, copper may also negatively affect organisms at concentrations higher than physiologically necessary and its risks on the marine ecosystem should not be neglected (Karlsson et al., 2010; Ytreberg et al., 2010).

Cu-based paints have now been supplemented by additional bio-cides, called "booster biocides", to improve their performance against certain more resistant algal fouling (Cima and Ballarin, 2012). The list of potential booster biocides used or promoted as agents in antifouling paints is considerable, but not all compounds are marketed (Price and Readman, 2013). Typical candidates of the tin-free booster biocide widely used in recent years include non-metallic organic compounds (irgarol, diuron, sea-nine 211, dichlofluanid, chlorothalonil, thiram, busan, densil, pyridine-triphenylborane, capsaicin, econea, medetomidine and tolylfluanid), and organometallic compounds (copper pyrithione, zinc pyrithione, zineb and maneb) (Dafforn et al., 2011; Diniz et al., 2014).

However, precise current information about quantities and types of the most used biocides around the world or even at national territory is scarce. A picture of booster biocide distributions and concentrations in European waters emerged from the Assessment of Antifouling Agents in Coastal Environments (ACE) project, which ran from 1999 to 2002 (ACE, 2002; Readman, 2006). Of these products, diuron presented the highest mean concentrations, with maximum levels reported in northwestern Europe. Irgarol 1051 was found at lower mean concentrations than diuron, with Mediterranean coastal environments the most contaminated. Other biocides, such as chlorothalonil, dichlofluanid and sea-nine 211, were sporadically encountered, principally in the Mediterranean Sea, but sometimes at very high concentrations (Price and Readman, 2013).

Information on the marine concentrations and toxicity of the most common biocides in antifouling paints is provided in the Supplementary Material, Table S1.

32. Mariculture

The European Commission is intending to boost growth of the aquaculture industry as a means to meet future seafood demands and as a potential source of employment and economic development (EC, 2012). Even though significant progress has been made to improve the aquaculture's environmental performance, the rapid expansion of this sector can also have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. Farmers use a wide range of chemicals to enhance productivity and growth, including antibiotics to control disease, pesticides to control parasites and algae, and antifoulants (Guardiola et al., 2012).

The highest amounts of chemicals used in aquaculture are associated with intensive finfish production, mainly salmonids, and sea bass and sea bream, sectors which have experienced the highest growth rate in recent years. The pressures associated with the cultivation of shellfish are generally considered to be less severe. As by far the majority of marine finfish farms culture the fish in sea cages, any chemical that may be used is discharged into the open water and sediments (EEA, 2011). Many of these chemicals may exert toxico-logical effects on non-target organisms. However, accurate information on the quantities of chemicals actually applied within the aquaculture industry is not always available, thus the compilation of a complete and quantitative list of chemicals is basically unattainable. Nevertheless, there are some overviews which provide valuable information (e.g. GESAMP, 1997; Costello et al., 2001; Johnston and Santillo, 2002; OSPAR, 2009a). It has been seen that the use of chemicals varies between different types of aquaculture farms, between countries and between individual operations within the same country (Rodgers and Furones, 2009). Therefore, it is unclear which chemicals would be the most important to screen for in aquaculture environments and aquaculture products (Burridge et al., 2010; Grigorakis and Rigos, 2011).

3.2.1. Medicinal products

Fish farmers must have access to a variety of properly authorized medicines to ensure animal health. There are only 14 medicinal products fully authorized and approved for use in sea farming in Europe (amoxicillin, azamethiphos, bronopol, cypermethrin, emamectin ben-zoate, florfenicol, flumequine, hydrogen peroxide, oxolinic acid, oxytet-racycline, sarafloxacin, sulfadiazine:trimethoprim, teflubenzuron, and tricaine methane sulphonate). The number is limited because of the high cost of development and licensing for a small market relative to other markets for pesticides and medicinals. Furthermore, the list of pharmaceuticals licensed varies a lot among countries. Despite the regulatory possibilities, it appears that many compounds are still legally available and even if not fully licensed, they can be used on an offlabel basis (Daniel, 2009; Rodgers and Furones, 2009).

Information on the main medicinal products in the marine aquaculture industry is summarized below and data on their marine concentrations and toxicity are provided in the Supplementary Material, Table S2.

3.2.1.1. Antibiotics. Despite the use of antibiotics having been reduced drastically in recentyears following the introduction of vaccines and improved husbandry practices, antibacterial therapy still remains the last recourse to combat bacterial fish infections in aquaculture (OSPAR, 2009a; EEA, 2011). Antibiotics commonly used include oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid and flumequine, although the pattern of medicinal use in aquaculture is constantly changing (Marine Institute for SWRBD, 2007). Typically, antibiotics are administered orally with feed but direct injection and/or immersion in antibiotic bath solutions are also used. In both cases, these substances, their metabolites and/or their degradation products are likely to pass to the surrounding environment. For example, in intensive fish farming, approximately 70-80% of the antibacte-rials given as medicated feed pellets end up in the environment (Ferreira et al., 2007). Concerns regarding the use of antibiotics in aquaculture are multiple, including the contamination of indigenous, nontarget organisms and the induction of drug resistance in microbial and other wild populations (Grigorakis and Rigos, 2011; Samuelsen et al., 2014).

3.2.12. Parasiticides. Several antiparasitic agents are routinely used for delousing farmed fish, including pyrethroids such as cypermethrin and deltamethrin, organophosphates such as azamethiphos, as well as benzamide and avermectins such as flubenzurons and emamectin benzoate. The compounds are either dissolved in water and used for bath treatment or administered orally via the feed (Olsvik et al., 2014; Samuelsen et al., 2014). Following the treatment period, these therapeutants are released into the marine environment either dispersed throughout the water column or in particulate form via uneaten feed, fecal material and in soluble form in urine. Therefore both water column and seabed potentially receive inputs of active ingredients and metabolite from such treatments (Telfer et al., 2006). Studies under laboratory conditions suggest that negative impacts from anti-louse treatments, if they occur, are minor and will be restricted in spatial and temporal scales. However, field data are limited (Haya et al., 2005; Burridge et al., 2010).

32.13. Anesthetics. Anesthetic are used in aquaculture to assist immobilization of brood animals during egg and milt stripping and to sedate and calm animals during transportation. They are used infrequently and in low doses, thus limiting potential for environmental damage (Burridge et al., 2010). However, there is a paucity of information regarding their tolerance and associated behavioral responses by fish (Readman et al., 2013). Most common anesthetic agents include benzo-caine, quinaldine and tricaine methane sulphonate (MS-222) (GESAMP, 1997; Costello et al., 2001).

3.2.1.4. Disinfectants. Disinfectants are widely used in aquaculture throughout the world to maintain hygiene throughout the production

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 5

cycle and, sometimes, to treat disease (GESAMP, 1997). Formalin and iodophors are the most common disinfectants in European aquaculture (Costello et al., 2001). However, there are very few data available regarding the presence and effects of disinfectants in the marine environment and there appears to be no regulations regarding their use (Burridgeet al., 2010).

3.2.2. Food additives and contaminants

The addition of additives to fish and crustacean feeds represents a non-intrusive method by which a variety of absorbable compounds may be delivered to cultured stock. Food additives include artificial and natural pigments, such as astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, vaccines, antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene and ethoxyquin, and immunostimulants such as vitamins C and E. These compounds are unlikely to cause any effects in the environment and are generally recognized as safe (GESAMP, 1997; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2003).

It is well accepted that the main source of metal pollution in sediments under fish cages are fish food formulations which are supplemented with various metals to fulfill complete mineral requirements of farmed fish (Grigorakis and Rigos, 2011; Simpson et al., 2013). The metals in feed mainly include copper, zinc, iron, manganese, and others like cobalt, arsenic, magnesium and selenium (CIESM, 2007; Burridge et al., 2010).

Farmed fish diet is also a potential source of other contaminants such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PAHs, hexachlorobenzenes (HCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and organochlorine pesticides like DDT resulting from the consumption of feed (Grigorakis and Rigos, 2011). Several studies have showed higher concentrations of these toxic substances in farmed than wild fish (Cole et al., 2009). This may result in the redistribution of contaminants in the surrounding marine environment. For example, the sediments collected close to Scottish marine fish farms have been found to be slightly contaminated by PCBs, but at levels unlikely to give rise to unacceptable biological effects (OSPAR, 2009a; Russell et al., 2011).

3.2.3. Antifouling biocides

Aquaculture in general, and the fish farming industry in particular, suffers significantly from the effects of biofouling. Applying a biocidal coating on the submerged structures and net-cages is still commonly used in aquaculture. With the elimination ofTBT, anti-fouling paints have been mostly based on copper, usually in the form of copper oxide. Hence, the sediment close to the fish farms have been found to exhibit high copper levels, often higher than the recommended sediment quality guidelines (Willemsen, 2005; Simpson et al., 2013). The extensive use of anti-fouling biocides is also considered a potential source of metal accumulation in cultured fish, which have been associated to lethal or sub-lethal effects and the immediate immune defense mechanism of the exposed fish (Nikolaou et al., 2014).

Other antifouling compounds widely used in aquaculture include chorothalonil, copper pyrithione (CuPT), dichlofuanid, sea-nine 211, di-uron, irgarol-1051, TCMS pyridine, zinc pyrithione (ZnPT), and zineb (Guardiola et al., 2012).

3.3. Offshore activities

3.3.1. Offshore oil and gas exploration and production

The highest risks of chemical contamination due to offshore activities are generally related to the oil and gas industry. Rock cuttings from drilling (drill cuttings) and formation water brought up with the hydrocarbons (produced water) are considered the largest sources of contaminants entering the sea from regular offshore oil and gas operations (Bakke et al., 2013). There is limited monitoring of quantities and consequent inputs to marine ecosystems, and consequently a greater transparency with regard to the chemicals used as well as a better

knowledge of the possible environmental impact of offshore effluents has been pointed out as a priority (Roose et al., 2011). This becomes particularly relevant considering that the European oil and gas industry is shifting to deeper regions of the ocean, where even less is known about effects on the species that inhabit them and where proper regulatory frameworks to minimize damage to the environment can be more complicated (Science for Environment Policy, 2012).

3.3.1.1. Drilling waste. The drilling of wells generates significant quantities of wastes. This waste is made up of drilling fluids and the cuttings generated during drilling. Drilling fluids (drilling muds) are used to lift formation cuttings to the surface, control subsurface pressures, lubricate drill strings, bottom hole cleaning and cooling, and maintenance and stability of uncased sections of the borehole (Holdway, 2002; Breuer et al., 2004). Drill cuttings are particles of crushed rock produced by the grinding action of the drill bit as it penetrates the earth (Neff, 2005).

The major components of drill muds are a base fluid (water, oil, or another organic fluid, such as esters, ethers, or olefins) and a weighting material, often barite (barium sulfate). Various additives are also used to improve the technical performance of the mud, and their use varies between drilling operations and in the course of the drilling. The chemicals used as additives include viscosifiers, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, shale inhibitors, emulsifiers, lubricants, wetting agents, surfactants, detergents, salts and organic polymers, and are mostly classified as PLONOR (substances considered to pose little or no risk to the environment) by OSPAR (Neff, 2005; Bakke et al., 2013). While > 1000 products are available for formulating drilling fluids, the total number of ingredients in most drilling fluids is in the range of 8-12 (Holdway, 2002). In addition, several metals are present in most water-based drilling muds, being arsenic, barium, chromium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc the metals of greatest concern, taking into account their potential toxicity and/or abundance in drilling fluids (ARPEL, 1999; Neff, 2005).

Drill cuttings contain, besides formation solids, small amounts of liquid and solid drilling mud components. The amounts of drilling fluid solids that remain attached to cuttings vary depending on the grain size of the crushed rock from the strata being drilled. Cuttings produced during drilling with water-based drilling muds may contain small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons (Neff, 2005). Moreover, the presence of radionuclides in both liquid and solid wastes generated during oil and gas production is well known. With respect to drill cuttings, important radionuclides are 226Ra, 228Ra, and others that form from their decay, e.g. 210Pb (Breuer et al., 2004).

In practice, operational discharges today only take place from drilling using water-based drilling muds, since the discharges of oil-based muds and synthetic muds were gradually phased out from mid-1990s for environmental reasons (Neff, 2005; Bakke et al., 2013). Even though the environmental monitoring has not found effects of water-based cuttings on benthic fauna at a distance of >250 m from the drilling installations, and that the effect mechanism is mainly physical stress, it is still uncertain whether the discharges can have undesirable chemical effects over a prolonged period (Research Council of Norway, 2012; Bakke et al., 2013).

Drill cutting accumulations (cuttings piles) represent another anthropogenic perturbation on the seabed. Before regulations, extensive discharges of oil-based cuttings resulted in large waste deposits of polluted drilling cuttings beneath and around the platforms, causing widespread sediment contamination and effects on the benthos. Since the discharges no longer contain oil, the recovery of local sediment fauna has been substantial and nowadays it is rare to find effects on fauna >500 m from the piles (Research Council of Norway, 2012; Bakke et al., 2013). However, the old, polluted cuttings piles still exist. For example, in the North Sea, 79 large (>5000 m3) and 66 small (< 5000 m3) cutting piles have been identified and their total hydrocarbon concentration has been measured in the range of 10,000 to 600,000 mg/kg (Bakke et al., 2013). Hydrocarbons within the cuttings

ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

piles seem to remain relatively unchanged with time. Other constituents such as heavy metals are also likely to remain within the cuttings pile unless physical disturbance from platform activities, storms, or trawling provoke the dispersion of material and enhance the leakage of contaminants (Breuer et al., 2004). Moreover, biodegradation and other diage-netic processes in the piles over the years might have produced other potentially toxic compounds such as complex esters and organic acids which until recently could not be identified analytically. Therefore, older cuttings piles might represent a source of episodic and continuous contamination in the marine environment (Bakke et al., 2013).

33.1.2. Produced water. Produced water means water which is produced in oil and/or gas production operations and is a combination of formation water, condensation water and re-produced injection water; it also includes water used for desalting oil. Produced water represents the largest waste stream generated in the offshore production activities, in both volume and quantity of pollutants. As an example, in the OSPAR maritime area, produced water has been found to represent > 90% of the total amount of oil discharged to the sea from offshore oil and gas activities (OSPAR, 2014a).

The composition of produced waters may vary significantly from well to well and overtime in individual wells (Roose et al., 2011). This wide variation does not help itself to the establishment of routine monitoring and region specific studies might be needed to address the environmental risks from its discharge (Neffet al., 2011). OSPAR provides a list of the naturally occurring substances usually being analyzed to characterize produced water samples along with their established PNECs (Agreement 2014-05). Typical compounds include PAHs and other dissolved hydrocarbons (e.g. benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), alkylphenols, heavy metals (e.g. barium, chromium, lead, and nickel), organic acids (e.g. formic and acetic acid), and radioactive isotopes such as 226Ra and 228Ra. In addition, large numbers of specialty additives (treatment chemicals), such as scale (mostly based on phosphonates, phosphate esters or acrylic acid copolymers) and corrosion inhibitors (generally complex mixtures of amides, amines, amine salts, imadazolines, and quaternary ammonium salts), biocides, antifoams, and flocculants are also regularly discharged from produced waters (ARPEL, 1999; Meier etal., 2010; Neffet al., 2011). For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the specific chemicals and quantities contained in oilfield products are not generally made public and only the legally required health and safety data are normally specified on material safety data sheets (McCormack et al., 2001).

Most of these chemicals are usually present at very low concentrations and, upon discharge to the sea, the level of contamination can be reduced due to natural dispersion, volatilization and biodegradation processes. Consequently, any large-scale negative biological effects of produced water at offshore installations are likely to be minor, with the possible exception of bioaccumulation in shellfish (Neff et al., 2011; Louren^o et al., 2015). Nonetheless, there is still need for a better understanding ofthe produced water's constituents, environmental fate and potential effects, particularly chronic, low-level exposure to the different chemicals (Neffetal., 2011; Bakke etal., 2013). Due to the sheer volume discharged, produced water is still considered a major source of marine pollution and there is considerable concern over its ocean disposal (Meier et al., 2010; Brooks et al., 2011).

3.3.13. Accidental spills. Accidental spills from offshore installations include well blowouts, acute or slow releases from subsea equipment and pipelines, structural failure or damage of production or pumping platforms, and platform-tanker loading activities. Oil pollution from oil and gas installations, especially well blowouts, can differ substantially from ship-sourced oil spills, principally due to the potentially larger quantity and prolonged release of fresh oil (EMSA, 2013b). As said above, chemical dispersants can be used as a response to an oil spill. Dispersant usage has been an issue of renewed interest for the European national administrations in recent years, in particular following the

explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, where emergency responders applied extensive amounts of the chemical dispersants Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A (Graham et al., 2016).

Furthermore, the effects of more frequent small spills are not to be underestimated. In the OSPAR area, in addition to planned discharges, 1205 tonnes of chemicals were accidentally spilled in 2012. The majority of the chemicals spilled were on the OSPAR PLONOR list (84%) or were chemicals not containing candidates for substitution (12%), and of the 455 spills in 2012, over 80% were < 1 tonne (OSPAR, 2014a).

3.3.1.4. Decommissioning of disused installations. Once oil or gas fields reach the end of their operating life, the issue of decommissioning (essentially a reclamation process) arises. The offshore oil and gas industry is facing the prospect of de-commissioning thousands of installations in the coming decades. In some parts of the world the issue is already pressing, particularly in the OSPAR region decommissioning is expected to peak during 2010-2020 (OSPAR, 2010a). There seems to be a fine line between decommissioning and dumping (Hamzah, 2003). Nowadays, there are many different regulatory frameworks around the world relevant for decommissioning operations, but there is no clear consensus on what best practices should be (Testa, 2014; Techera and Chandler, 2015).

A proper decommissioning policy must consider the environmental hazards of the process. All removal options will result in ecosystem disturbance and subsequent localized impacts, including release of contaminants from re-suspended sediments or from the drill cuttings piles accumulated on the seabed (Schroeder and Love, 2004; OGP, 2012). If the installation is to be retained in situ, it could also result in a source of marine pollution since any structures left over will eventually corrode and leach contaminants such as PCBs, residual oil, heavy metals and other toxic substances (Lakhal et al., 2009; Adedayo, 2011). When it is not possible to remove the lower parts of a platform, for example concrete substructures and the footings of the largest steel installations, the parts left in place may form artificial reefs (OSPAR, 2010a). However, this action has also repercussions. A typical large steel installation is composed of 90% steel, 2% aluminum and 0.3% copper. When the structure ultimately deteriorates, the surrounding environment will be exposed to chemicals like iron, lead, cadmium and mercury (Adedayo, 2011).

3.3.2. Other offshore installations

Potential risks due to the operation ofsubsea cables or pipelines certainly exist, but mainly linked to the mobilization of contaminants held within the sediment when the seabed is disturbed and therefore only expected for heavily contaminated areas. Release of contaminants from the cable itself can only occur if cables are not removed after termination of service and if fluid-filled cables are used (Meißner et al., 2006). Major concerns related to offshore structures for renewable energy generation (wind, wave and tidal energy devices) are the increase of noise levels and risks of collisions, while pollution by chemicals might be a problem due to the increased vessel traffic and potential spills or from seabed sediments disturbance (Bailey et al., 2014). There is also risk of pollution during routine operation and maintenance activities, including leaching of chemicals from antifouling paints and accidental spills of hydraulic fluid or lubricant oil from operational devices (Bonar et al., 2015). Organic or metal pollutants associated with the infrastructure used for electrical signals, and metals associated with sacrificial anodes might be also released into surrounding marine waters. Therefore, the contaminants potentially discharged from marine renewable energy devices include metals such as aluminum, copper, and zinc, booster bio-cides such as diuron and irgarol, hydrocarbons such as BTEX and PAHs (e.g. naphthalene), and also chemicals used as dielectric fluids such as silicone fluids (e.g. polydimethylsiloxane, PDMS), mineral oils (e.g. naphthenic oil), biodiesel, natural vegetable oils (e.g. soybean, canola, corn, and sunflower oil), and synthetic esters (e.g. MIDEL 7131),

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

coolants such as ethylene and propylene glycols, and electrolytes such as sulfuric acid (Bejarano et al., 2013; California State Lands Commission, 2013; Copping et al., 2015).

3.4. Seabed mining

Seabed mining is concerned with the retrieval of minerals occupying the ocean floor. Commercial scale seabed mining operations are up to now limited to shallow water, mainly to the extraction of aggregates (sand and gravel) for the construction industry and nourishing beaches, and other material such as tin, phosphates, iron ore and diamonds. Commercial scale mining activities in deeper water (i.e. beyond 500 m water depth) has never been conducted. However, the rapid expansion in the capabilities of underwater technology as well as concerns over security of supply of raw materials for industry have encouraged mining companies to consider what the sea can provide. The number of contracts granted to explore minerals on the seabed has increased greatly in latest years and commercial exploitation is planned to begin in the near future (Jaeckel, 2015). By 2020, deep seabed mining could provide 5% of the world's minerals, including cobalt, copper and zinc and this could rise to 10% by 2030 (EC, 2012).

Seabed mining has, therefore, the potential for new mineral resources, but also raises serious environmental concerns. The deep sea hosts a unique and rich biodiversity, which has been suggested to play significant roles in the ocean processes. The environmental consequences of mining in this hostile and vulnerable environment may be concealed and difficult to monitor (Clark and Smith, 2013; Sarkar et al., 2013). In addition to the destruction of habitats and other direct physical impacts, marine organisms near the miner can be exposed to contaminant plumes generated by the physical activity of the mining machine, the movement of the unconsolidated sediment drape, and the dewatering process. The spatial distribution of the plumes will depend on the mining activity and the strength of surface and bottom currents, so there is the potential for toxicity over widespread geographical areas (Coffey, 2008; Clark and Smith, 2013). Along with normal operations, the accidental hydraulic fluid leaks, fuel spills during transfers at the site of the production support vehicles, ore spills during transfer to barges and bulk ore carriers, and accidental collisions may also result in the release of chemicals into the marine environment (Hunter and Taylor, 2014).

Research about chemical impacts and toxicity resulting from deep sea mining is very limited, so it is difficult to predict what effects will occur and how significant they will be (Zhou, 2007). One of the primary concerns is related to the release of metals (e.g. zinc, copper, cadmium, and mercury), which could lead to toxic effects on pelagic biota, including bioaccumulation through the food chain, and affect the surrounding seafloor habitats (Boschen et al., 2013; Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2015). In fact, it has been said that mining activities can introduce heavy metals in the deep sea in concentrations exceeding 4000 times the limits considered to be safe (Coffey, 2008). Other chemicals are often used during ore processing to aid in concentrating the ore and therefore, can be emitted into the aquatic environment. Process chemicals include flotation agents such as xanthate salts and Lilaflot (a mixture of 60-80% N-(3-(tridecyloxy)propyl)-1,3-propane diamine and 20-40% N-(3-(tridecyloxy)propyl)-1,3-propane diamine acetate), and flocculants such as polyacrylamide. These substances are toxic to aquatic organisms but, in general, very little is known about their effects on marine wildlife (Olsvik et al., 2015; Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2015). This kind of information is essential to develop sustainable guidelines and regulations for managing deep sea mining activities (Hunter and Taylor, 2014). Deep sea mining is not directly addressed in EU law, hence the MSFD can constitute an important mechanism for regulating the environmental aspects associated with this activity (EC, 2014). The regulations governing deep sea mining activities depend on whether they take place inside or outside the juris-dictional waters of a sovereign state. When operating within the

Exclusive Eco-nomic Zone (EEZ) (up to 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline) of a certain country, mining activities are subject to the country's internal legislation. However, when deep sea mining operations occur in the international seabed (the "Area" which is the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction), the rules of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) apply. Compliance with these rules is checked by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an intergovernmental body established under UNCLOS.

3.5. Dredging of sediment and dumping at sea

Dredging and dumping are regulated human activities that contribute to the input of sea-sourced substances. Estuarine and coastal marine sediments are frequently contaminated with a suite of metals and organic compounds from both historical and current inputs. Resuspension of bottom sediments by dredging processes has been proven to cause large scale increases in water column contaminant levels, which has been linked to community-level and sub-lethal responses in exposed populations of invertebrates and fish (Hedge et al., 2009; Katsiaras et al., 2015). Despite the potential environmental hazards, dredging is essential to maintain ports and harbors and navigational access, and so dredging operations have increased in several countries worldwide (Wasserman et al., 2013).

Ocean dumping is defined as "any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea". Dumping, therefore, is always intentional, and does not include accidental discharges or operational discharges, which are regulated under MARPOL (Frank, 2007). Much of the material removed during dredging activities requires disposal at sea and may also harm the marine environment (Parnell et al., 2008). EU legislation does not deal specifically with dredged material, although a number of EU Directives (namely the Waste Framework Directive, Natura 2000 areas under the Birds and Habitat Directives, the WFD, and the MSFD) have an impact on the management of dredged material, either direct or indirectly. Today, the deliberate disposal of dredged sediments into the ocean is essentially regulated by the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (London Convention) and its 1996 Protocol (London Protocol).

Guidelines for the management of dredged material in Europe are provided on a regional level by RSCs. These guidelines include the need for the chemical characterization of the dredged material in order to provide decision points that determine whether sediments can be disposed of at sea. The chemicals recommended to be considered are trace metals and metalloids (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), PCBs, PAHs, and organotin compounds. Other substances that may also require analysis, based upon local information of sources of contamination or historic inputs, include other chlorobiphenyls, organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, triphenyl tin (TPhT), other anti-fouling agents, petroleum hydrocarbons, PCDDs/PCDFs, and phthalates (OSPAR Agreement 2014-06).

Although properly managed dredged material seems to represent virtually all material dumped into the ocean today (OSPAR, 2009b), already-dumped toxic material, as well as some permitted, unregulated or illegal dumping activities, can still represent a substantial environmental hazard (Frank, 2007).

3.5.1. Emissions from historical dumping sites

Dumping of the most toxic materials is banned by the London Convention but in the past all types of wastes were ocean dumped, including contaminated dredged material, industrial wastes and sewage sludge. Although there are no complete records of the volumes and types of materials disposed in marine waters prior to 1972, some areas with decades of uncontrolled dumping became demonstrably polluted with high concentrations of PAHs, acid chemical wastes (e.g.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

titanium dioxide waste), heavy metals, and organic chemical wastes (Vethaak and Van Der Meer, 1991; Leipe et al., 2013; Liehr et al., 2013).

Radioactive wastes, munitions and chemical weapons were also routinely dumped into the sea worldwide previously and until the prohibition with the London Convention (OSPAR, 2010b, 2010c).

3.5.1.1. Radioactive wastes. A first global inventory of radioactive waste disposal at sea was issued in 1991 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and subsequently updated in 1999 and 2015. This report provides data on the date and location of the disposal operations as well as the type, number and weight or volume of the disposed containers. Yet, the information is heterogeneous due to the different ways in which the countries had kept their records and, unfortunately, detailed information on radionuclide composition of the waste is generally lacking (IAEA, 1999, 2015).

In the OSPAR high seas areas of the North-East Atlantic, it is assumed that approximately 98% of the disposed radioactive waste consisted of beta and gamma emitters, mainly tritium (3H) and others such as 90Sr, 134Cs, 137Cs, 55Fe, 58Co, 60Co, and 14C. The rest 2% were alpha-emitters and consisted principally of plutonium and americium isotopes (OSPAR, 2014b). In the Baltic Sea region, several dumpings of radioactive waste have been officially confirmed, but there is no further information available on radionuclide composition (HELCOM, 2003). There is no official record and no environmental evidence of radioactive waste dumping into the Black Sea (IAEA, 1999). In the Mediterranean, detailed information on historical dumping of radioactive waste is difficult to access or absent (Coll et al., 2012).

The impact of this radioactive contamination on the marine environment and humans is still unclear. The scientific research conducted during and for some years after cessation of the dumping operations showed that calculated doses to man were negligible, although robust conclusions about environmental impacts could not be drawn due to the lack of baseline data on the benthic biology (HELCOM, 2003; OSPAR, 2014b). A recent study has reported deviations from expected 238Pu/239, 240Pu activity ratios and 240Pu/239Pu atom ratios in sediment samples from the Kara Sea, suggesting the possibility of leakages of radioactive material from dumping containers into the environment (Gwynn et al., 2016). At present, dumping grounds are not routinely subject to radiological assessment, although the need for such regular monitoring is under discussion (OSPAR, 2014b).

3.5.1.2. Munitions and chemical weapons. Chemical weapons and conventional munitions were commonly dumped in European waters after World Wars I and II, principally in the Baltic Sea (Roose et al., 2011; Betdowski et al., 2016). Large amounts were also dumped in the OSPAR Maritime Area (OSPAR, 2010c) and in the Mediterranean Sea, particularly in the Southern Adriatic, which was also more recently affected by the Balkans War (Frank, 2007). Warfare agents constitute, therefore, a class of legacy contaminants, but in many cases, accurate information on the quantities, locations and current condition of the dumpsites is unavailable (Benn et al., 2010).

Chemicals originating from warfare materials can eventually leak into the sea and spread from the sites of disposal over more distant areas. Leakage of toxic compounds from the corroded munitions has been recently suggested in dumpsites of the Baltic (Missiaen et al., 2010; Barsiene et al., 2014) and Adriatic Sea (Amato et al., 2006; Della Torre et al., 2013), and there are predictions that corrosion will lead to maximal leakage periods in the middle of the 21st century (Roose et al., 2011). Furthermore, the increasing demand for marine activities such as offshore wind farms and pipelines as well as changes in fishing practices raise new issues since these activities could also alter undisturbed munitions.

About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as warfare agents in the 20th century (CHEMSEA, 2013). A comprehensive list does not exist, as the composition of material in many dumping incidents is unknown (Beddington and Kinloch, 2005). Conventional munitions are

believed to represent the main proportion of the dumped material and they consist primarily of nitroaromatics explosives, such as TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene) and DNT (2,4-dinitrotoluene), and nitramines explosives, such as RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine). Besides the explosive material, conventional ammunition consists almost completely of metals, mainly copper, iron, nickel, tungsten, tin, lead, aluminum and zinc, and also contains propellants, plasticizers, and stabilizers, such as the nitrate esters nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose (Liebezeit, 2002; Lotufo et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2013). Large numbers of incendiary munitions (e.g. containing white phosphorus) are known to have been also frequently disposed of at sea. Contamination by white phosphorus stemming from incendiary devices has been reported in many coastal areas around the world, including the OSPAR maritime area, the Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas (Amato et al., 2006; OSPAR, 2010c; HELCOM, 2013a).

Regarding chemical weapons, the main compounds known or suspected to have been dumped into the sea are blistering agents, mostly sulfur mustard gas (yperite) and arsenic-containing compounds such as adamsite (diphenylaminechloroarsine), Clark I (diphenylarsine chloride), Clark II (diphenylarsine cyanide) and arsine oil (a technical mixture of Clark I (35%), phenyldichloroarsine (50%), trichloroarsine (5%), and triphenylarsine (5%)). Other compounds considerably dumped include nerve agent organophosphates (e.g. Tabun), choking agents (e.g. phosgene), and lachrymatory agents (e.g. a-chloroacetophenone) (Sanderson et al., 2012; HELCOM, 2013a; Barsiene et al., 2014). Many of these weapons contain hazardous additives, such as aromatic and chlorinated solvents (e.g., benzene, chlorobenzene, tetrachlorometh-ane) (HELCOM, 2013a). Despite this, little is still known about their persistence, bioaccumulation and adverse effects on humans and biota (OSPAR, 2009c; Sanderson et al., 2012). Table S3 compiles data on concentrations and toxicity of main warfare agents thought to be dumped at sea at one time or another.

3.6. Other sea-based activities

Other activities can be included as potential sea-based sources of contamination. Several accidents at sea resulting in actual or potential release of radioactive materials have been reported (IAEA, 2015). Artificial radionuclides can also be introduced into the marine environment by under-water testing of nuclear weapons (Benn et al., 2010).

Furthermore, potentially polluting shipwrecks, both recent and relic, can represent a hazard for the marine environment (Alcaro et al., 2007). Between 2.5 and 20.4 million metric tons of oil have been calculated to be contained in sunken wrecks worldwide, which might be released as the shipwrecks deteriorate (Landquist et al., 2013). Deterioration and corrosion of the aged structures can also lead to the leakage of other toxic substances, mainly arsenic, metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc, and other compounds like PCBs, asbestos, biocides, PVC, and radioactive waste (Alcaro et al., 2007; Annibaldi et al., 2011; Sprovieri et al., 2013).

4. Results and conclusions

Table 1 presents the resulting list of contaminants identified from the literature as potentially released into the marine environment from sea-based anthropogenic activities. It includes 276 substances with their CAS identification number and major sea-based sources: 19 metals/metalloids, 10 organometallic compounds, 24 inorganic compounds, 204 organic compounds, and 19 radionuclides. The offshore oil and gas operations contribute to this list with the highest number of substances, followed by shipping and mariculture activities (Fig. 1). Moreover, although most substances have been linked to only one sea-based activity, there are cases in which they are associated with more than one source, thus increasing their potential risks.

However, it is necessary to bear in mind that this manuscript is not intended to be a risk assessment. While all substances in the list are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 9

List of main chemical substances entering the marine environment from sea-based sources and their consideration under relevant legislative/regulatory frameworks and RSCs in European marine waters.

Substance CAS number Potential sea-based source Legislative/ regulatory framework HELCOM OSPAR Barcelona Convention Black Sea Commission

Shipping Mariculture Offshore oil and gas industry Offshore renewable energy devices Seabed mining Dredging/dumping of dredged material Historical dumping sites Shipwrecks

Metals/Metalloids

Aluminum 7429-90-5 X X X BSIMAP (optional).

Arsenic 7440-38-2 X X X X X Recommendation 36/2. Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Barium 7440-39-3 X Recommendation 18/2. Agreement 14-05.

Cadmium and its compounds 7440-43-9 X X X X X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea. Recommendation 36/2. Recommendation 18/2. Chemical for Priority Action (partA). Monitoring under CEMP. Agreement 2014-06. Agreement 14-05. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Chromium 7440-47-3 X X X X Recommendation 36/2. Recommendation 18/2. Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05. BSIMAP (optional).

Cobalt 7440-48-4 X BSIMAP (optional).

Copper 7440-50-8 X X X X X X X X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review). Recommendation 36/2. Recommendation 18/2. Agreement 201406. PARCOM Recommendation 94/6. Agreement 14-05. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Iron 7439-89-6 X X X X Agreement 14-05. BSIMAP (optional).

Lead and its compounds 7439-92-1 X X X X X WFD PS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Recommendation 18/2. Chemical for Priority Action (partA). Monitoring under CEMP. Agreement 2014-06. Agreement 14-05. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Magnesium 7439-95-4 X

Manganese 7439-96-5 X X X BSIMAP (optional).

Mercury and its compounds 7439-97-6 X X X X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea. Recommendation 36/2. Recommendation 18/2. Chemical for Priority Action (partA). Monitoring under CEMP. Agreement 2014-06. Agreement 14-05. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 X

Nickel and its compounds 7440-02-0 X X X X WFD PS. Recommendation 36/2. Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05. BSIMAP (optional).

Selenium 7782-49-2 X

Tin 7440-31-5 X

Tungsten 7440-33-7 X

Vanadium 7440-62-2 X X

Zinc 7440-66-6 X X X X X X X X Recommendation 36/2. Agreement 201406. PARCOM Recommendation 94/6. Agreement 14-05. BSIMAP (optional).

Organometallic compounds

Copper pyrithione 14915-37-8 X X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

Dibutyltin (DBT) 1002-53-5 X X WFD PS

Monobutyltin (MBT) 78763-54-9 X X WFD PS

TPBP(KH101) (triphenylborane pyridine) 971-66-4 X BPD (not identified as biocidal product).

Tributyl phosphate 126-73-8 X

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

10 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 1 (continued)

Tributyltin compounds ( tributyltin-cation) 36643-28-4 X X X WFD PS. WFD PHS: tributyltin-cation. BPD (globally banned). Core indicators for hazardous substances. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea. Recommendation 36/2. Chemical for Priority Action (part A): organic tin compounds. Monitoring under CEMP.

Triphenyl tin (TPhT) 668-34-8 X Substance of Possible Concern (section B). Agreement 201406.

Zinc pyrithione 13463-41-7 X X BPD (notified substance, dossier submitted, and pending approval).

Zineb 12122-67-7 X X BPD (approved as active substance for product type 21).

Ziram 137-30-4 X BPD (non-inclusion into Annex I or la; not allowed in formulations placed on the market since 2008).

Inorganic compounds

Copper (I) oxide (Cu20) 1317-39-1 X

Ammonia 7664-41-7 X

Ammonium bisulfite 10192-30-0 X Agreement 201306.

Barite (barium sulfate) 13462-86-7 X Agreement 201306.

Basic zinc carbonate 5970-47-8 X

Bentonite (sodium montmorillonite) 1302-78-9 X Agreement 201306.

Calcite (calcium carbonate, limestone) 471-34-1 X Agreement 201306.

Chlorine (C12) 7782-50-5 X CWC (agent banned in warfare). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Chromium trioxide 1333-82-0 X BPD (not applicable as product type 21).

Copper thiocyanate 1111-67-7 X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

Hematite (diiron trioxide) 1309-37-1 X Agreement 201306.

Hydrogen peroxide 7722-84-1 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Ilmenite (iron titanium oxide) 12168-52-4 X Agreement 201306.

Iodophoros 25655-41-8 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Lime (calcium oxide) 1305-78-8 X Agreement 201306.

Phosphoric acid 7664-38-2 X

Potassium chloride (muriate of potash) 7447-40-7 X Agreement 201306.

Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) 1310-73-2 X X

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 X X

Titanium dioxide 13463-67-7 X Titanium Dioxide Directives. PARCOM Recommendation 84/1.

Trichloroarsine 7784-34-1 X CWC (schedule 2). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Triiron tetraoxide 1317-61-9 X Agreement 201306.

White phosphorus 12185-10-3 X CCWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Zinc oxide 1314-13-2 X

Organic compounds

1-dodecanol 112-53-8 X

1-nonanol (nonyl alcohol) 143-08-8 X

2-butoxyethanol 111-76-2 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

2,6-ditert-butyl-4-methylphenol (butylated hydroxytoluene) 128-37-0 X Recommended for the first WFD Watch List. Reg. 1881/2003, annex I.

2-imidazoline 504-75-6 X

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 11

Acenaphtene 83-32-9 X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Acenaphtylene 208-96-8 X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Acetic acid 55896-93-0 X X Agreement 14-05. Agreement 201306.

Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 X

Adamsite 578-94-9 X cwc. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Alkyl (C5-C8, C9) benzenes Not applicable X

Alkylacrylate sulfonate derivatives Not applicable X

Aluminum stearate 7047-84-9 X

Amides Not applicable X

Amines Not applicable X

Ammonium picrate 131-74-8 X cwc. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Amoxicillin 26787-78-0 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Aniline 62-53-3 X

Anthracene 120-12-7 X X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406.

Asbestos 1332-21-4 X

Astaxanthin 472-61-7 X Reg. 1881/2003, annex I (authorized additive).

Azamethiphos 35575-96-3 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 X X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Benzene 71-43-2 X X X X WFD PS. Agreement 14-05.

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Benzo( b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Benzo(g,h,i )perylene 191-24-2 X X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Benzo( k)fluoranthene 205-99-2 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Benzocaine 94-09-7 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 X

Biodiesel (B100) 67784-80-9 X

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 103-23-1 X

Brominated diphenyleters Not applicable X WFD PS. WFD PHS: tetra, penta, hexa, heptabromodiphenyleth er. Core indicators for hazardous substances: PBDE 28,47,99,100, 153 and 154. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea: penta, octa, and decabromodiphen ylether. Chemical for Priority Action (partC): 2,4,6-bromophenyl 1 -2(2,3-dibromo-2-methylpropyl). Monitoring under CEMP.

Bronopol 52-51-7 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Butyl Acrylate (all isomers) 141-32-2 X

Butylated hydroxyanisole 25013-16-5 X Reg. 1881/2003, annex I. Substance of Possible Concern (section B).

Butyric acid 107-92-6 X Agreement 14-05.

Canola oil 120962-03-0 X X

Canthaxanthin 514-78-3 X Reg. 1881/2003, annex I.

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

12 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 1 (continued)

Capsaicin 404-86-4 X X BPD (proposed candidate as biocide). CWC (agent banned in warfare). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) 56-23-5 X WFD other pollutants.

Carboxymethyl cellulose 9000-11-7 X

Chloramphenicol 56-75-7 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (prohibited substance).

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 X

Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 X X BPD (non-inclusion into Annex I or la; not allowed in formulations placed on the market since 2008).

Chrysene 218-01-9 X X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Clark 1 712-48-1 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Clark II 23525-22-6 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Corn oil 8001-30-7 X X

Cybutryne (irgarol) 28159-98-0 X X X WFD PS. BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

Cyclohexane 110-82-7 X

Cyclopentadiene 542-92-7 X

Cyclosarin 329-99-7 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Cypermethrin 52315-07-8 X WFD PS: isomer mixture of cypermethrin, alpha-cypermethrin, beta-cypermethrin, theta-cypermethrin, and zeta-cypermethrin. Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

DCOIT (sea-Nine 211) 64359-81-5 X X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

DDTs Not applicable X X WFD other pollutants. Agreement 201406: organochlorine pesticides. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Decanoic acid 334-48-5 X

DEGDN 693-21-0 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Deltamethrin 52918-63-5 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 14-05.

Dibenzothiophene 132-65-0 X Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 14-05.

Dichlofluanid 1085-98-9 X X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

Dichlorvos 62-73-7 X WFD PS.

Diesel fuel 68476-29-9 X X

Diethylhexylphthalate (DEHP) 117-81-7 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Chemical for Priority Action (part A). Agreement 201406: characterization of phthalates may be necessary.

Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 13

Dimethylamine 124-40-3 X

Dimethylphenols Not applicable X

Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds (sum of PCDD+PCDF+PCB-DL) Not applicable X X WFD PS. WFD PHS: 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 1,2,3,7,8-PCDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HCDD, 1.2.3.6.7.8-HCDD, 1.2.3.7.8.9-HCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HCDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-PCDF, 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8-HCDF, 1.2.3.6.7.8-HCDF, 1.2.3.7.8.9-HCDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-HCDF, 1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HCDF, 1.2.3.4.7.8.9-HCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF, 3,3',4,4'-TCB, and PCB 77,81,105,114,118, 123,126,156,157,167, 169, and 189. Core indicators for hazardous substances: PCBs 28,52,101,118, 138,153, and 180; WHO-TEQof dioxins, furans +dl-PCBs. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea. Recommendation 36/2: PCB 28, 52, 101,118,138, 153, and 180. Chemical for Priority Action (part A): PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs. Pre-CEMP. Agreement 201406: PCB 28,52, 101,138,153, and 180. Characterization of PCDDs /PCDFs may be necessary.

Diphenylamine 122-39-4 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Diphosgene 503-38-8 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Di-propylene glycol butyl ether 29911-28-2 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Di-propylene glycol monomethyl ether 34590-94-8 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light (SP 250) 64742-47-8 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory). Substance of Possible Concern (section B).

Diuron 330-54-1 X X X WFD PS. BPD (non-inclusion into Annex I or la; not allowed in formulations placed on the market since 2008).

Emamectin benzoate 155569-91-8 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Enrofloxacin 93106-60-6 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Erythromycin 114-07-8 X Recommended for the first WFD Watch List. Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Ethoxyquin 91-53-2 X Reg. 1881/2003, annex I.

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 X X X Agreement 14-05.

Ethylene glycol (glycol) 107-21-1 X X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory). Agreement 201306.

Fatty acids, fish-oil, ethoxylated 103991-30-6 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Florfenicol 73231-34-2 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Flumequine 42835-25-6 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 X X WFD PS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406.

Fluorene 86-73-7 X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Folpet 133-07-3 X BPD (non-inclusion into Annex I or la; not allowed in formulations placed on the market since 2008).

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

14 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 1 (continued)

Formalin 50-00-0 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Formic acid 64-18-6 X Agreement 14-05. Agreement 201306.

Glutaraldehyde (pentane-1,5-dial) 111-30-8 X

Glycerin (glycerol) 56-81-5 X Agreement 201306.

Graphite 7782-42-5 X Agreement 201306.

Heptane (all isomers) 142-82-5 X

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 118-74-1 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Substance of Possible Concern (section B). UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme.

Hexane (all isomers) 110-54-3 X

Hexanoic acid 142-62-1 X

HMX 2691-41-0 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Hydrogen cyanide 74-90-8 X CWC (schedule 3). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Hydroxyethyl cellulose 9004-62-0 X Agreement 201306.

Indeno( 1,2.3 ,-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 X X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

isobutyric acid 79-31-2 X Agreement 14-05.

Isononanol 27458-94-2 X

Isovaleric acid 503-74-2 X Agreement 14-05.

Ivermectin 70288-86-7 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not established for fish).

Kathon (mixture of 5-chloro-2 methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one) 55965-84-9 X

Lewisite 541-25-3 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Lignite 129521-66-0 X Agreement 201306.

Lignosulfonate 8062-15-5 X

Lilaflot (a mixture of N-(3-(tridecyloxy)propyI)-l,3-propane diamine and N-(3-(tridecyloxy)propyl)-l,3-propane diamine acetate) 22023-23-0 19073-42-8 X

Malachite green 569-64-2 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (not authorized substance).

Malonic acid 141-82-2 X

Maneb 12427-38-2 X BPD (not identified as biocidal product).

MB554 (mixture of 4-(2-nitrobutyl) morpholine and 4,4-(2-ethyl-2-nitrotrlmethylene) dimorpholine) 2224-44-4 1854-23-5 X

Medetomidlne 86347-14-0 X BPD (new substance, dossier submitted for approval as product type 21).

Metacaine 886-86-2 X

Methanol 67-56-1 X X Agreement 201306.

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 1634-04-4 X

Methylphenols (cresols) 1319-77-3 X X

MIDEL 7131 (synthetic ester) 68424-31-7 X

Nalidixic acid 389-08-2 X

Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated light 64742-49-0 X

Naphthalene 91-20-3 X X WFD PS. Core indicators for hazardous substances. Agreement 14-05.

Naphthenic acid 1338-24-5 X Agreement 14-05.

Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 X

Nitrocellulose 9004-70-0 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 15

Nitrogen mustard 55-86-7 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Nitroglycerin 55-63-0 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Nitroguanidine 556-88-7 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Nonane (all isomers) 111-84-2 X

Nonylphenols Not applicable X X WFD PS. WFD PHS: nonylphenol, including isomers 4-nonylphenol and 4-nonylphenol (branched). BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea: nonylphenols/eth oxylates. Chemical for Priority Action (part A): nonylphenols/eth oxylates and related substances. Agreement 14-05.

Octane (all isomers) 111-65-9 X

Octylphenols Not applicable X X WFD PS: octylphenol, including isomer 4-(U',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea (octylphenol/etho xylates). Chemical for Priority Action (part A). Agreement 14-05.

Organophosphorus pesticides Not applicable X Agreement 201406: characterization may be necessary.

Orthophosphate 14265-44-2 X

Oxalic acid 144-62-7 X

Oxolinic acid 14698-29-4 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Oxytetracycline 79-57-2 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Palm oil 68440-15-3 X

Pentaerythritol 115-77-5 X

Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) 127-18-4 X

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives (PFOS) 1763-23-1 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Core indicators for hazardous substances: perfluorooctane sulfonate. BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea: perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid. Chemical for Priority Action (part A). Pre-CEMP.

PETN 78-11-5 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 X X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Phenol 108-95-2 X X Agreement 14-05. BS1MAP (optional).

Phenoxyethanol 122-99-6 X PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Phenyldichloroarsine 696-28-6 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Phosgene 75-44-5 X CWC (schedule 3). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Picric acid 88-89-1 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Piromidic acid 19562-30-2 X X

Polyacrylamide 9003-05-8 X X

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

16 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 1 (continued)

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Not applicable X X X X X X WFD PS. Core indicators for hazardous substances: US EPA 16 PAHs/selected metabolites. Recommendation 36/2: SPAH16 and/or ZPAH9 as a subgroup ofIPAH16. Recommendation 18/2: total hydrocarbon content. Chemical for Priority Action (part A). CEMP: monitoring of parent PAHs. Pre-CEMP: alkylated PAHs. Agreement 201406. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Not applicable X X X Chemical for Priority Action (part A). Monitoring under CEMP. Agreement 2014-06:PCB characterization may be necessary. UNEP/MAP MED POL monitoring programme. BSIMAP (mandatory).

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) 63148-62-9 X X

Polyethylene oxide 25322-68-3 X

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 9002-86-2 X

Propionic acid 79-09-4 X Agreement 14-05ef.

Propyleneglycol (1,2-propanediol) 57-55-6 X X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Propylene oxide (methyloxirane) 75-56-9 X

Pyrene 129-00-0 X X Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 36/2. Substance of Possible Concern (section A). Agreement 201406. Agreement 14-05.

Quaternary ammonium compounds 12001-31-9 X

Quinaldine 91-63-4 X

RDX 121-82-4 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Sarafloxacin 98105-99-8 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Sarin 107-44-8 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Sodium di-iso-octyl sulphosuccinate (DOSS) 577-11-7 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Soman 96-64-0 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate 1338-43-8 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivatives 9005-65-6 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl) derivatives 9005-70-3 X X National rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants (EMSA Dispersants Inventory).

Soybean oil 8001-22-7 X X

Styrene monomer 100-42-5 X

Sulfadiazine 68-35-9 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Sulfamethoxazole 723-46-6 X

Sulfathiazole 72-14-0 X

Sulfonated salts of asphalt (gilsonite) 8052-42-4 X

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 17

Sulfur mustard 505-60-2 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Sunflower oil 8001-21-6 X X

Tabun 77-81-6 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Tannins 1401-55-4 X

TCMS pyridine (Densil 100) 13108-52-6 X X BPD (not identified as biocidal product).

TCMTB (Busan) 21564-17-0 X BPD (not identified as biocidal product).

Tear gas 532-27-4 X CWC (agent banned in warfare). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Teflubenzuron 83121-18-0 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Tetrachloro-ethylene 127-18-4 X WFD other pollutants.

Tetryl 479-45-8 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Thiram 137-26-8 X BPD (not applicable as product type 21).

TNT 118-96-7 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Toluene 108-88-3 X X X Agreement 14-05.

Tolylfluanid 731-27-1 X BPD (existing active substance, dossier under review).

Tralopyril (Econea) 122454-29-9 X BPD (new substance, dossier submitted for approval as product type 21).

Tricaine methane sulphonate (MS-222) 886-86-2 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Trichlorfon 52-68-6 X

Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 X WFD other pollutants.

Tritluralin 1582-09-8 X WFD PS. WFD PHS. Chemical for Priority Action (Part A).

Trimethoprim 738-70-5 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL established). PARCOM Recommendation 94/6.

Triphenylarsine 603-32-7 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Valeric acid (pentanoic acid) 109-52-4 X Agreement 14-05.

VG 78-53-5 X CWC (schedule 2). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) 50-81-7 X Reg. 1881/2003, annex 1. Agreement 201306.

Vitamin E (a-tocopherol) 59-02-9 X Com. Reg. 37/2010 (allowed substance, MRL not required). Reg. 1881/2003, annex I.

VM 21770-86-5 X CWC. HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

VX 50782-69-9 X CWC (schedule 1). HELCOM SUBMERGED. Recommendation 2010/20. Obsolete ordnance not specifically considered in the Dumping Protocol.

Xanthate salts Not applicable X

Xylene 1330-20-7 X X X Agreement 14-05.

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

18 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 1 (continued)

Radionuclides

241 Am X Recommendation 26/3 (voluntary).

14C X

58CO X

60CO X

134CS X Recommendation 26/3 (obligatory).

137CS X EURATOM Treaty (Art. 36). Core indicators for hazardous substances. Recommendation 26/3 (obligatory). BSIMAP (optional).

55Fe X

3H X Recommendation 26/3 (voluntary). Agreement 201311.

1311 X Agreement 201311.

224Ra X

226Ra X Agreement 201311.

228Ra X Agreement 201311.

210Pb X Agreement 201311.

210PO X Recommendation 26/3 (voluntary).

238P11 X

239.240PU X Recommendation 26/3 (voluntary).

90Sr X EURATOM Treaty (Art. 36). Recommendation 26/3 (voluntary). BSIMAP (optional).

228Th X Agreement 201311.

238U X

WFD PS: Water Framework Directive Priority Substance; PHS: Water Framework Directive Priority Hazardous Substance (status as at Directive 2013/39/EU of 12 August 2013).

WFD Other Pollutants: Pollutants included in the Annex II of Directive 2013/39/EU and for which a European standard applies, but not in the priority substances list.

WFD Watch list: New mechanism is to support the identification of priority substances for regulation under WFD. A restricted number of substances or group of substances (up to 10) are to be

included ina dynamic Watch List, remaining there for limited time (Carvalho et al., 2015).

BPD: EU Biocide Regulation (528/2012 and amendment 334/2014): All biocidal products require an authorization before they can be placed on the market, and the active substances contained in

that biocidal product must be previously approved. Hence, a list of active substances agreed for inclusion in biocidal products are listed in Annexes I and IA and classified under 22 different biocidal

product types, including antifouling agents (product type 21).

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003: European Union legislation on feed additives.

CWC: Chemical Weapons Convention:

• Schedule 1 substances are chemicals which can either be used as toxic chemical weapons themselves or used in the manufacture of chemical weapons but which have as little or no use for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.

• Schedule 2 substances are chemicals which can either be used as toxic chemical weapons themselves or used in the manufacture of chemical weapons but which are not produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.

• Schedule 3 substances are chemicals which can either be used as toxic chemical weapons themselves or used in the manufacture of chemical weapons but which also may be produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.

CCWC: Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,Protocol 111 on Incendiary Weapons.

Com. Reg. 37/2010: Commission Regulation (EU) No37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in food stuffs of animal origin.

EMSA Dispersants Inventory: This inventory contains information for each Member State regarding the national rules and regulations for usage of oil spill dispersants as an at-sea oil spill response method. The inventory is updated in regular intervals (latest in EMSA, 2014).

Titanium Dioxide Directives (Council Directive 78/176/EEC.82/883/EEC, 92/112/EEC): Community legislation to prevent and progressively reduce pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry with a view to the elimination of such pollution.

HELCOM SUBMERGED: HELCOM expert group on environmental risks of hazardous submerged objects (assessment period agreed for 2015-2017). The terms of reference of this group include also sea dumped chemical munitions.

HELCOM core indicators: Core indicators for hazardous substances as concluded in the final report of the HELCOM CORESET project (HELCOM, 2013b).

BSAP specific concern in the Baltic Sea: Hazardous substances of the Baltic Sea Action Plan to follow the reaching of the ecological objectives under the strategic goal of hazardous substances (HELCOM, 2007).

HELCOM Recommendation 18/2: HELCOM guidelines for the environmental performance of offshore activities HELCOM Recommendation 18/2 adopted 12 March 1997. http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/Rec%2018-2.pdf.

HELCOM Recommendation 36/2: HELCOM Guidelines for Management of Dredged Material at Sea, adopted by HELCOM 36-2015 on 4 March 2015. http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/HELCOM%20Guidelines%20for%20Management%20of%20Dredged%20Material%20at%20Sea.pdf. HELCOM Recommendation 26/3: HELCOM guidelines for regular monitoring programme of radioactive substances. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/Guidelines%20for%20Monitoring%20of%20Radioactive%20Substances.pdf.

OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action:

• Part A: Chemicals where a background document has been or is being prepared.

• Part B: Chemicals where no background document is being prepared because they are intermediates in closed systems.

• Part C: Chemicals where no background document is being prepared because there is no current production or use interest. OSPAR List of Substances of Possible Concern:

• Section A: substances which warrant further work by OSPAR because they do not meet the criteria for Sections B-D and substances for which, for the time being, information is insufficient to group them in Sections B-D.

• Section B: substances which are of concern for OSPAR but which are adequately addressed by EC initiatives or other international forums.

• Section C: substances which are not produced and/or used in the OSPAR catchment or are used in sufficiently contained systemsmaking a threat to the marine environment unlikely.

• Section D: substances which appear not to be "hazardous substances" in the meaning of the Hazardous Substances Strategy but where the evidence is not conclusive. CEMP: OSPAR Coordinated Environmental Monitoring programme (concentrations and effects in the marine environment).

OSPAR Recommendation 2010/20: OSPAR framework for reporting encounters with conventional and chemical munitions in the OSPAR Maritime Area (from 1 January 2011). OSPAR Agreement 2014-06: OSPAR guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea, including its chemical characterization.

PARCOM Recommendation 94/6: Best Environmental Practice (ВЕР) for the Reduction of Inputs of Potentially Toxic Chemicals from Aquaculture Use (implementation reporting on this recommendation ceased in 2006, but that if there were significant developments in the aquaculture industry in the future, the need for implementation reporting should be revisited) (OSPAR, 2006).

PARCOM Recommendation 84/1 on pollution by titanium dioxide wastes.

OSPAR Agreement 14-05: OSPAR list of potentially harmful substances typically analyzed to characterize produced water samples from the offshore industry.

OSPAR Agreement 2013-06: OSPARlist of substances used and discharged offshore which do not normallyneed to be strongly regulated as the OSPAR Commission considersthem to pose little or no risk to the environment (PLONOR).

OSPAR Agreement 2013-11: Reporting procedures to be used for annual reporting of data on discharges from the non-nuclear sector, as required by the OSPAR Radioactive Substances Strategy. www.ospar.org/work-areas/rsc/non-nuclear-discharges.

UNEP/MAP MED POL Monitoring programme (Annex IX Contaminants): Indicators Monitoring Fact Sheets on Ecological Objective 9: Contaminants (UNEP/MAP, 2015). UNEP/MAP Dumping protocol: Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft. BSIMAP: Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme, www.blacksea-commission.org/_bsimap.asp.

EURATOM Treaty (Art. 36): Commission recommendation of 8 June 2000 on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000H04738ifrom=EN.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 19

■ Shipping

■ Mariculture

■ Offshore gas/oil activities Offshore renewable energy devices Seabed mining

Dredging/dumping of dredged material Historical dumping sites Shipwrecks

Fig. 1. Percentage of the total number of identified substances linked to each sea-based source.

likely to be introduced into the marine environment, this does not implicitly mean that all of them have to be regarded as being very hazardous or discharged at levels of concern. The degree of concern must be evaluated in terms of a combination of factors, mainly the temporal and spatial scales over which the compound can be found together with their toxicity and adverse effects on marine organisms. Yet, this literature review has evidenced either a lack of information on many of these crucial aspects or the difficulty to get access to it (as seen in Tables S1, S2, and S3).

The environmental safety information for many chemicals in use today is seldom available, in particular for those used in the aquaculture and offshore industries. Even when data are accessible, the same product can be marketed under different names and the active ingredients may not be registered. This makes it exceedingly hard to keep uniform records, to perform large-scale comparisons and to assess the potential effects on the aquatic environment. Furthermore, quantitative data on patterns of use and release of chemicals are also very difficult to obtain. For many substances, only the fact of use is typically documented, especially in the case of warfare material, which is usually steeped in secrecy and confidentiality. With the increased use of the sea and its resources, a regularly updated inventory of the types and quantities of chemicals released is essential to understand the relative influence of each human activity and how they accumulate and interact to impact the marine ecosystems.

What can be learnt from this experience is that, despite the growing attention to the risk linked to the emission of harmful substances into the sea, and the fact that monitoring activities are likely conducted at a regular pace, much of the generated information is still hard to access, not systematically analyzed, and, hardly ever, the object of re-analysis to produce a synthetic view. This illustrates the commendable efforts made by the scientific community to convey important messages to the structures devoted to environmental monitoring and protection as well as that the contributions are generally related to episodic and isolated efforts. Thus, improving information gathering and exchange to ensure that it is as useful and accessible as possible is equally important than improving the observational strategies and the quality of the data.

Clearly, this is not meant to be seen as a closed and definite list of marine-relevant contaminants but as a consolidated starting point when approaching the management of chemical pollution from coastal to open sea environments. For this purpose, the Table 1 also provides an overview of environmental policy instruments and frameworks in place to oversee and regulate these substances within the EU. Hence, it can be seen that several WFD substances are not tackled under any RSC programme and vice versa. Furthermore, only four WFD PS (PAHs, cadmium, mercury, and lead) are also prioritized in the four European marine regions, while other substances are shared by the different frameworks but in a varying way. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the level of harmonization across Europe with regard to the contaminants selected by different regional frameworks is rather low. Nevertheless, as seen in Table 1, there are a number of other European or international legislations and regulations as well as recommendations, agreements and programmes at national or regional level, which directly or indirectly deal with most substances or group of substances. It is

important, though, to notice that nearly one-third of the identified chemicals appears not to be considered under any framework in place.

In summary, this review contributes to the challenging endeavor of gathering and integrating information already accessible on marine-relevant contaminants. On one hand, it can help decide where to prioritize efforts in order to access and mobilize additional data. On the other hand, by bringing up the existing legal and regulatory landscape, it can help understand which substances are currently covered at European and/or regional level and which substances might require further control and/or monitoring actions. This compilation should provide support for setting-up of approaches to marine pollution monitoring, including hotspots screening.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.091.

References

ACE, 2002. Assessment of antifouling agents in coastal environments (ACE). Final Scientific and Technical Report. Mas3-Ct98-0178. Adedayo, A.M., 2011. Environmental risk and decommissioning of offshore oil platforms

in Nigeria. NIALS J. Environ. Law 1,1-30. Alcaro, L., Amato, E., Cabioch, F., Farchi, C., Gouriou, V., 2007. DEEPP Project, DEvelopment of European Guidelines for Potentially Polluting Shipwrecks. ICRAM, Instituto Centrale per la Ricerca scientifica e tecnologica Applicata al Mare. CEDRE, CEntre de Documentation de Recherché et d'Epérimentations sur les pollutions accidentelles des eaux.

Amato, E., Alcaro, L., Corsi, I., Della Torre, C., Farchi, C., Focardi, S., Marino, G., Tursi, A., 2006. An integrated ecotoxicological approach to assess the effects of pollutants released by unexploded chemical ordnance dumped in the southern Adriatic (Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Biol. 149,17-23. Annibaldi, A., Illuminati, C., Truzzi, C., Scarponi, G., 2011. SWASV speciation of Cd, Pb and Cu for the determination of seawater contamination in the area of the Nicole shipwreck (Ancona Coast, Central Adriatic Sea). Mar. Pollut Bull. 62, 2813-2821. ARPEL (Asociación Regional de Empresas de Petróleo y Gas Natural en Latinoamérica y el Caribe), 1999t. Guidelines for the Control of Contamination From Offshore Exploration and Production Operations. Guideline ARPELC1DA07EGGU12699. Bailey, H., Brookes, K., Thompson, P.M., 2014. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquat. Biosyst 10,8.

Bakke, T., Klungs0yr, J., Sanni, S., 2013. Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Mar. Environ. Res. 92,154-169. Barsienè, J., Butrimavicienè, L., Grygiel, W., Lang, T., Michailovas, A., Jackünas, T., 2014. Environmental genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in flounder (Platichthys flesus), herring (Clupea harengus) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from chemical munitions dumping zones in the southern Baltic Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 96,56-67. Beddington, J., Kinloch, AJ., 2005. Munitions Dumped at Sea: A Literature Review. 1C Consultants Ltd., 1mperial College London. Bejarano, A.C., Michel, J., Rowe, J., Li, Z., McCay, D.F., McStay, L., Etkin, D.S., 2013. Environmental risks, fate and effects of chemicals associated with wind turbines on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. US Department of the 1nterior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-213. Beldowski, J., Klusek, Z., Szubska, M., Turja, R., Bulczak, A., Rale, D., Brenner, M., Lang, T., Kotwicki, L., Grzelak, K., Jakacki, J., Fricke, N., Ostin, A., Olsson, U., Fabisiak, J., Garnaga, G., Nyholm, J.R., Majewski, P., Broeg, K., Sôderstrôm, M., Vanninen, P., Popiel, S., Nawala, J., Lehtonen, K., Berglind, R., Schmidt, B., 2016. Chemical munitions search & assessment— an evaluation of the dumped munitions problem in the Baltic Sea. Deep-Sea Res. 11128,85-95. Benn, A.R., Weaver, P.P., Billet, D.S.M., van den Hove, S., Murdock, A.P., Doneghan, G.B., le Bas, T., 2010. Human activities on the deep seafloor in the north East Atlantic: an assessment of spatial extent. PLoS One 5(9), e12730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0012730.

Bennett, B., Larter, S.R., 2000. Polar non-hydrocarbon contaminants in reservoir core extracts. R. Soc. Chem. Div. Geochem. Am. Chem. Soc. 5. Bonar, P.AJ., Bryden, 1.G., Borthwick A.G.L., 2015. Social and ecological impacts of marine

energy development. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 47, 486-495. Boschen, R.E., Rowden, AA., Clark M.R., Gardner, J.P.A., 2013. Mining of deep-sea seafloor massive sulfides: a review of the deposits, their benthic communities, impacts from mining, regulatory frameworks and management strategies. Ocean Coast. Manag. 84, 54-67.

Breuer, E., Stevenson, A.G., Howe, J.A., Carroll, J., Shimmield, G.B., 2004. Drill cutting accumulations in the Northern and Central North Sea: a review of environmental interactions and chemical fate. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48,12-25. Brooks, S., Harman, C., Zaldibar, B., 1zagirre, U., Glette, T., Marigómez, 1., 2011.1ntegrated biomarker assessment of the effects exerted by treated produced water from an onshore natural gas processing plant in the North Sea on the mussel Mytilus edulis. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 327-339. Burridge, L.E., Weis, J.S., Cabello, F., Pizarro, J., Bostik, K., 2010. Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: a review of current practices and possible environmental effects. Aquaculture 306, 7-23.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

20 V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

California State Lands Commission, 2013. Marine Renewable Energy and Environmental Impacts: Advancing California's Goals. Report. (available at http://www.slc.ca.gov/ Info/Reports/MRE-AdvancingCAGoals.pdf).

Carvalho, R.N., Ceriani, L., Ippolito, A., Lettieri, T., 2015. Development of the first watch list under the environmental quality standards directive. JRC Technical Report. Report EUR 27142.

CHEMSEA 2013. Results from the CHEMSEA project - chemical munitions search and assessment. http://www.chemsea.eu/admin/uploaded/CHEMSEA%20Findings.pdf.

CIESM, 2007. Impact of aquaculture on coastal ecosystems. CIESM Monografs 32, Monaco (<http://www.ciesm.org/online/monografs/lisboa07.pdf>).

Cima, F., Ballarin, L., 2012. Immunotoxicity in ascidians: antifouling compounds alternative to organotins III - the case of copper(I) and irgarol 1051. Chemosphere 89,19-29.

Clark, M.R., Smith, S., 2013. Chapter 3.0: environmental management considerations. Deep Sea Minerals: Manganese Nodules, a Physical, Biological, Environmental, and Technical Review vol. 1B. Secretariat of the Pacific Community.

Coffey, 2008. Environmental Impact Statement: Solwara 1 Project. Nautilus Minerals Niugini Limited (http://www.cares.nautilusminerals.com/Downloads.aspx).

Cole, D.W., Cole, R., Gaydos, S.J., Gray, J., Hyland, G., Jacques, M.L., Powell-Dunford, N., Sawhney, C., Au, W.W., 2009. Aquaculture: environmental, toxicological, and health issues. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 212,369-377.

Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Albouy, C., Lasram, F.B.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Christensen, V., Karpouzi, V.S., Guilhaumon, F., Mouillot, D., Paleczny, M., Palomares, M.L., Steenbeek J., Trujillo, P., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2012. The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21,465-480.

Copping, A., Hanna, L., Van Cleve, B., Blake, K., Anderson, R.M., 2015. Environmental risk evaluation system—an approach to ranking risk of ocean energy development on coastal and estuarine environments. Estuar. Coasts 38 (Suppl. 1), S287-S302.

Coppock, R.W., Dziwenka, M.M., 2014. Biomarkers of petroleum products toxicity. In: Gupta, R.C. (Ed.), Biomarkers in Toxicology. Elsevier Inc., pp. 647-654.

Costello, M.J., Grant, A., Davies, I.M., Cecchini, S., Papoutsoglou, S., Quigley, D., Saroglia, M., 2001. The control of chemicals used in aquaculture in Europe. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17, 173-180.

Cunha, I., Moreira, S., Santos, M.M., 2015. Review on hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) involved in marine spill incidents. An online database. J. Hazard. Mater. 285, 509-516.

Dafforn, K.A., Lewis, J.A., Johnston, E.L., 2011. Antifouling strategies: history and regulation, ecological impacts and mitigation. Mar. Pollut Bull. 62,453-465.

Daniel, P., 2009. Available chemotherapy in Mediterranean fish farming: use and needs. In: Rogers, C., Basurco, B. (Eds.), The Use ofVeterinary Drugs and Vaccines in Mediterranean AquacultureOptions Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens Vol. 86. CIHEAM, Zaragoza, pp. 197-205.

Della Torre, C., Petochi, T., Farchi, C., Corsi, I., Dinardo, Sammarini, V., Alcaro, L., Mechelli, L., Focardi, S., Tursi, A., Marino, G., Amato, E., 2013. Environmental hazard of yperite released at sea: sublethal toxic effects on fish. J. Hazard. Mater. 248-249,246-253.

Diniz, L.G.R., Jesus, M.S., Dominguez, L.A.E., Fillmann, G., Vieirac, E.M., Franco, T.C.R.S., 2014. First appraisal of water contamination by antifouling booster biocide of 3rd generation at Itaqui Harbor (Sao Luiz - Maranhao - Brazil). J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 25

(2), 380-388.

EC, 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: blue growth—opportunities from the marine and maritime sustainable growth. COM 2012,494.

EC, 2014. Study to Investigate State of Knowledge of Deep Sea Mining: Interim Report Under FWC MARE/2012/06 - SC E1/2013/04.

EEA, 2011. Aquaculture Production (CSI033) - Assessment Published Sep 2011.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2008. Accidental oil spills from marine shipping. Assessment Made on 01 Nov 2008.

EMSA, 2010. Manual on the Applicability of Oil Spill Dispersants.

EMSA, 2012. Addressing Illegal Discharges in the Marine Environment.

EMSA, 2013a. Inventory of EU Member States' Policies and Operational Response Capacities for HNS Marine Pollution.

EMSA, 2013b. Action Plan for Response to Marine Pollution From Oil and Gas Installations.

EMSA, 2014. Inventory of National Policies Regarding the Use of Oil Spill Dispersants in the EU Member States.

EMSA, 2016. Overview of national dispersant testing and approval policies in the EU. Information Paper Developed by the Technical Correspondence Group on Dispersants, Under the Consultative Technical Group for Marine Pollution Preparedness and Response (CTG MPPR).

EMSA (European Maritime Safety Agency), 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. Maritime Accident Review.

Ferraro, G., Meyer-Roux, S., Muellenhoff, O., Pavliha, M., Svetak J., Tarchi, D., Topouzelis, K., 2009. Long term monitoring of oil spills in European seas. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30

(3), 627-645.

Ferreira, C.S., Nunes, B.A., Henriques-Almeida, J.M., Guilhermino, L., 2007. Acute toxicity of oxytetracycline and florfenicol to the microalgae Tetraselmis chuii and to the crustacean Artemia parthenogenetica. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 67,452-458.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2003. A Scientific Review of the Potential Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in Aquatic Ecosystems. Far-field environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture (Hargrave, B.T.); ecosystem level effects of marine bivalve aquaculture (Cranford, P., Dowd, M., Grant, J., Hargrave, B., McGladdery, S.); chemical use in marine finfish aquaculture in Canada: a review of current practices and possible environmental effects (Burridge, LE.). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2450 vol. 1 (131 pp.).

Frank, V., 2007. The European Community and Marine Environmental Protection in the International Law of the Sea: Implementing Global Obligations at the Regional

Level. Volume 58. Publications on Ocean Development. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden (482 pp.).

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1997p. Towards safe and effective use of chemicals in coastal aquaculture. Reports and Studies No. 65. FAO, Rome (40 pp.).

Graham, L., Hale, C., Maung-Douglass, E., Sempier, S., Swann, L., Wilson, M., 2016. Oil Spill Science: Chemical Dispersants and Their Role in Oil Spill Response (MASGP-15-015).

Grigorakis, K., Rigos, G., 2011. Aquaculture effects on environmental and public welfare -the case of Mediterranean mariculture. Chemosphere 855, 899-919.

Guardiola, F.A., Cuesta, A., Meseguer, J., Esteban, M.A., 2012. Risks of using antifouling bio-cides in aquaculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13,1541-1560.

Gwynn, J.P., Nikitin, A., Shershakov, V., Heldal, H.E., Lind, B., Teien, H.C., Lind, O.C., Sidhu, R.S., Bakke, G., Kazennov, A., Grishin, D., Fedorova, A., Blinova, O., Svsren, I., Liebig, P.L., Salbu, B., Wendell, C.C., Strälberg, E., Valetova, N., Petrenko, G., Katrich, I., Logoyda, I., Osvath, I., Levy, I., Bartocci, J., Pham, M.K., Sam, A., Nies, H., Rudjord, A.L., 2016. Main results of the 2012 joint Norwegian-Russian expedition to the dumping sites of the nuclear submarine K-27 and solid radioactive waste in Stepovogo Fjord, Novaya Zemlya.J. Environ. Radioact 151,417-426.

Häkkinen, J., Posti, A., 2014. Review of maritime accidents involving chemicals -special focus on the Baltic Sea. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 8 (2), 295-305.

Hamzah, B.A., 2003. International rules on decommissioning of offshore installations: some observations. Mar. Policy 27, 339-348.

HASREP, 2005. Report on Task 1: Monitoring of the Flow of Chemicals Transported by Sea in Bulk.

Hassler, B., 2011. Accidental versus operational oil spills from shipping in the Baltic Sea: risk governance and management strategies. Ambio 40,170-178.

Haya, K., Burridge, L.E., Davies, I.M., Ervik A., 2005. A review and assessment of environmental risk of chemicals used for the treatment of sea lice infestations of cultured salmon. Handb. Environ. Chem. 5, 305-340.

Hedge, L.H., Knott, N.A., Johnston, E.L., 2009. Dredging related metal bioaccumulation in oysters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 832-840.

HELCOM, 2003. Radioactivity in the Baltic Sea 1992-1998. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings. No. 85.

HELCOM, 2007. Towards Baltic Sea unaffected by hazardous substances. A HELCOM Overview for the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2007.

HELCOM, 2013a. Chemical munitions dumped in the Baltic Sea. Report of the ad hoc Expert Group to Update and Review the Existing Information on Dumped Chemical Munitions in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM MUNI). Baltic Sea Environment Proceeding No. 142.

HELCOM, 2013b. HELCOM core indicators: final report of the HELCOM CORESET project. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings. No. 136.

Holdway, D.A., 2002. The acute and chronic effects of wastes associated with offshore oil and gas production on temperate and tropical marine ecological processes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44,185-203.

Honkanen, M., Häkkinen, J., Posti, A., 2013. Assessment of the chemical concentrations and the environmental risk of tank cleaning effluents in the Baltic Sea. WMU J. Marit Aff. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13437-013-0042-9.

Hunter, T., Taylor, M., 2014. Deep seabed mining in the South Pacific. A Background Paper, Centre for International Minerals and Energy Law.

Hurford, N., Law, R.J., Fileman, T.W., Paynea, A.P., Colcom-Heiliger, K., 1990. Concentrations of chemicals in the North Sea due to operational discharges from chemical tankers — results from the second survey, October 1988. Oil Chem. Pollut. 7 (4), 251-270.

IAEA, 2015. Inventory of Radioactive Material Resulting From Historical Dumping, Accidents and Losses at Sea. IAEA-TECDOC-1776, Vienna.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1999. Inventory of Radioactive Waste Disposals at Sea. IAEA-TECDOC-588, Vienna.

IMO (International Maritime Organization), 2000. Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-HNS Protocol).

ITOPF (The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation), 2005o. Use of dispersants to treat oil spills. Technical Information Paper.

Jaeckel, A., 2015. An environmental management strategy for the international seabed authority? The legal basis. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 30 (1), 93-119.

Johnston, P., Santillo, D., 2002. Chemical usage in aquaculture: implications for residues in market products. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 06/2002. Department of Biological Sciences University of Exeter, UK.

Jonkers, N., Laane, R.W.P.M., de Voogt, P., 2005. Sources and fate of nonylphenol ethoxylates and their metabolites in the Dutch coastal zone of the North Sea. Mar. Chem. 96,115-135.

Karlsson, J., Ytreberg, E., Eklund, B., 2010. Toxicity of anti-fouling paints for use on ships and leisure boats to non-target organisms representing three trophic levels. Environ. Pollut. 158,681-687.

Katsiaras, N., Simboura, N., Tsangaris, C., Hatzianestis, I., Pavlidou, A., Kapsimalis, V., 2015. Impacts of dredged-material disposal on the coastal soft-bottom macrofauna, Saronikos Gulf, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 508, 320-330.

Lakhal, S.Y., Khan, M.I., Islam, M.R., 2009. An "Olympic" framework for a green decommissioning of an offshore oil platform. Ocean Coast. Manag. 52,113-123.

Landquist, H., Hassellöv, I.M., Rosen, L., Lindgren, J.F., Dahllöf, I., 2013. Evaluating the needs of risk assessment methods of potentially polluting shipwrecks. J. Environ. Manag. 119,85-92.

Leipe, T., Moros, M., Kotilainen, A., Vallius, H., Kabel, K., Endler, M., Kowalsk, N., 2013. Mercury in Baltic Sea sediments—natural background and anthropogenic impact. Chem. Erde 73, 249-259.

Liebezeit, G., 2002. Dumping and re-occurrence of ammunition on the German North Sea coast. In: Missiaen, T., Henriet, J.P. (Eds.), Chemical Munition Dump Sites in Coastal

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Environments. Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs (OSTC), Brussels, Belgium, pp. 13-26.

Liehr, CA, Heise, S., Ahlf, W., Offermann, K., Witt, G., 2013. Assessing the risk of a 50-year-old dump site in the Baltic Sea by combining chemical analysis, bioaccumulation, and ecotoxicity. J. Soils Sediments l3,1270-1283.

Lotufo, G.R., Rosen, G., Wild, W., Carton, G., 2013. Summary review of the aquatic toxicology of munitions constituents. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington. Report Number ERDC/EL TR-13-8. Work Unit 33143.

Louren^o, R.A., de Oliveira, F.F., Nudi, A.H., Wagener, A.L.R., Meniconi, M.F.G., Francioni, E., 2015. PAH assessment in the main Brazilian offshore oil and gas production area using semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and transplanted bivalves. Cont Shelf Res. 101,109-116.

Marine Institute for SWRBD, 2007. Veterinary treatments and other substances used in finfish aquaculture in Ireland. Report of March 2007 (31 pp.).

McCormack, P., Jones, P., Hetheridge, M.J., Rowland, S.J., 2001. Analysis of oilfield produced waters and production chemicals by electrospray ionisation multi-stage mass spectrometry (ESI-MS). Water Res. 35 (15), 3567-3578.

McLaughlin, C., Falatko, D., Danesi, R., Albert, R., 2014. Characterizing shipboard bilgewa-ter effluent before and after treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 5637-5652.

Meier, S., Morton, H.C., Nyhammer, G., Grasvik B.E., Makhotin, V., Geffen, A., Boitsov, S., Kvestad, K.A., Bohne-Kjersem, A., Goks0yr, A., Folkvord, A., Klungs0yr, A., Svardal, A., 2010. Development of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) exposed to produced water during early life stages: effects on embryos, larvae, and juvenile fish. Mar. Environ. Res. 70, 383-394.

Meißner, K., Schabelon, H., Bellebaum, J., Sordyl, H., 2006. Impacts of Submarine Cables on the Marine Environment: A Literature Review. Federal Agency of Nature Conservation/Institute of Applied Ecology Ltd.

Missiaen, T., Söderström, M., Popescu, I., Vanninen, P., 2010. Evaluation of a chemical munition dumpsite in the Baltic Sea based on geophysical and chemical investigations. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3536-3553.

Neff, J.M., 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds and cuttings discharged to the marine environment. Prepared for Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) and American Petroleum Institute (73 pp.).

Neff, J.M., Lee, K., DeBlois, E.M., 2011. Produced water: overview of composition, fates, and effects. In: Lee, K., Neff, J. (Eds.), Produced Water. Environmental Risks and Advances in Mitigation Technologies. Springer, pp. 3-56.

Neuparth, T., Moreira, S.M., Santos, M.M., Reis-Henriques, M.A., 2011. Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) in the marine environment: prioritizing HNS that pose major risk in a European context. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 21-28.

Neuparth, T., Moreira, S.M., Santos, M.M., Reis-Henriques, M.A., 2012. Review of oil and HNS accidental spills in Europe: identifying major environmental monitoring gaps and drawing priorities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64,1085-1095.

Neuparth, T., Capela, R., Rey-Salgueiro, L., Moreira, S.M., Santos, M.M., Reis-Henriques, M.A., 2013. Simulation of a Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) spill in the marine environment: lethal and sublethal effects of acrylonitrile to the European seabass. Chemosphere 93, 978-985.

Nikolaou, M., Neofitou, N., Skordas, K., Castritsi-Catharios, I., Tziantziou, L., 2014. Fish farming and anti-fouling paints: a potential source of Cu and Zn in farmed fish. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 5,163-171.

NRC (National Research Council), 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press (280 pp.).

OGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers), 2012. Decommissioning of offshore concrete gravity based structures (CGBS) in the OSPAR maritime area/other global regions. Report No. 484, November 2012.

Olsvik P.A., 0rnsrud, R., Lunestad, B.T., Steine, N., Fredriksen, B.N., 2014. Transcriptional responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) exposed to deltamethrin, alone or in combination with azamethiphos. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C 162, 23-33.

Olsvik, P.A., Urke, H.A., Nilsen, T.O., Ulvund, J.B., Kristensen, T., 2015. Effects of mining chemicals on fish: exposure to tailings containing Lilaflot D817M induces CYP1A transcription in Atlantic salmon smolt. BMC Res. Notes http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ s13104-015-1342-2.

OSPAR, 2006. Overview assessment: implementation of PARCOM recommendation 94/6 on Best Environmental Practice (BEP) for the reduction of inputs of potentially toxic chemicals from aquaculture use. OSPAR Hazard. Subst. Ser. 262, 59.

OSPAR, 2009a. Assessment of Impacts of Mariculture. Biodiversity Series.

OSPAR, 2009b. JAMP Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Dumping of Wastes at Sea. Biodiversity Series.

OSPAR, 2009c. Assessment of the Impact of Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions. Biodiversity Series.

OSPAR, 2010a. Quality Status Report 2010. Assessment of the Impact of Shipping on the Marine Environment.

OSPAR, 2010b. Position paper on the implications of deep sea disposal of radioactive waste. Meeting of the Radioactive Substances Committee (RSC), Stockholm, Sweden, 20-23 April 2010.

OSPAR, 2010c. Overview of past dumping at sea of chemical weapons and munitions in the OSPAR maritime area- 2010 update. Biodiversity Series 2010.

OSPAR, 2014a. Assessment of the OSPAR report on discharges, spills and emissions to air from offshore oil and gas, 2010-2012. Offshore Industry Series.

OSPAR, 2014b. Report on historic deep sea disposal of radioactive waste in layperson's language. Meeting of the Radioactive Substances Committee (RSC), London, United Kingdom, 11 -13 February 2014.

Parnell, P.E., Groce, A.K., Stebbins, T.D., Dayton, P.K., 2008. Discriminating sources of PCB contamination in fish on the coastal shelf off San Diego, California (USA). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56,1992-2002.

Posti, A., Häkkinen, J., 2012. Survey of Transportation of Liquid Bulk Chemicals in the Baltic Sea. Publications from the centre for maritime studies University of Turku.

Price, A.R.G., Readman, J.W., 2013. Booster biocide antifoulants: is history repeating itself? Late Lessons From Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. Part B: Emerging Lessons From Ecosystems. European Environment Agency (EEA), pp. 265-278

Purnell, K., 2009. Are HNS spills more dangerous than oil spills? Conference Proceedings, Interspill Conference & the 4th IMO R&D Forum, Marseille, May 12-14,2009

Radovic, J.R., Rial, D., Lyons, B.P., Harman, C., Viñas, L., Beiras, R., Readman, J.W., Thomas, K.V., Bayona, J.M., 2012. Post-incident monitoring to evaluate environmental damage from shipping incidents: chemical and biological assessments. J. Environ. Manag. 109, 136-153.

Ramirez-Llodra, E., Trannum, H.C., Evenset, A., Levin, L.A., Andersson, M., Finne, T.E., Hilario, A., Flem, B., Christensen, G., Schaanning, M., Vanreusel, A., 2015. Submarine and deep-sea mine tailing placements: a review of current practices, environmental issues, natural analogs and knowledge gaps in Norway and internationally. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 97,13-35.

Readman, J.W., 2006. Development, occurrence and regulation of antifouling paint bio-cides: historical review and future trends. In: Konstantinou, I. (Ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry: Antifouling Paint BiocidesReview Series in Chemistry. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 1 -5.

Readman, G.D., Owen, S.F., Murrell, J.C., Knowles, T.G., 2013. Do fish perceive anaesthetics as aversive? PLoS One 8 (9), e73773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073773.

Research Council of Norway, 2012. Long-term effects of discharges to sea from petroleum-related activities. A Sub-programme Under the Oceans and Coastal Areas (Havkyst) Programme, PROOFNY, and the Concluded PROOF Research Programme.

Rodgers, C.J., Furones, M.D., 2009. Antimicrobial agents in aquaculture: practice, needs and issues. In: Rogers, C., Basurco, B. (Eds.), The Use of Veterinary Drugs and Vaccines in Mediterranean Aquaculture. Zaragoza, CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens Vol. 86, pp. 41-59.

Roose, P., Albaigés , J., Bebianno, M.J. , Camphuysen , C., Cronin, M., de Leeuw, J., Gabrielsen , G. , Hutchinson, T., Hylland, K., Jansson, B.,Jenssen, B.M., Schulz-Bull, D., Szefer, P., Webster, L., Bakke, T., Janssen, C., 2011. Chemical pollution in Europe's seas: programmes, practices and priorities for research, marine board position paper 16. In: Calewaert, J.B., McDonough, N. (Eds.), Marine Board-ESF, Ostend, Belgium (103 pp.).

Russell, M., Robinson, C.G., Walsham, P., Webster, L., Moffat, C.F., 2011. Persistent organic pollutants and trace metals in sediments close to Scottish marine fish farms. Aquaculture 319, 262-271.

Sammarco, P.W., Kolian, S.R., Warby, R.A.F., Bouldin, J.L., Subra, W.A., Porter, S.a., 2013. Distribution and concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the BP/ Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73,129-143.

Samuelsen, O.B., Lunestad, B.T., Farestveit, E., Grefsrud, E.S., Hannisdal, R., Holmelid, B., Tjensvoll, T., Agnalt, A.L., 2014. Mortality and deformities in European lobster (Homarus gammarus) juveniles exposed to the anti-parasitic drug teflubenzuron. Aquat. Toxicol. 149, 8-15.

Sanderson, H., Fauser, P., Thomsen, M., Larsen, J.B., 2012. Weight-of-evidence environmental risk assessment of dumped chemical weapons after WWII along the Nord-Stream gas pipeline in the Bornholm Deep. J. Hazard. Mater. 215-216,217-226.

Sarkar, M., Bose, N., Chai, S., Sarkar, S., Dowling, K., 2013. Turbidity caused by Spillage from a dredging/mining transverse axis cutter. Proceedings of WODCON XX: The Art of Dredging, 3-7 June, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 1-10 ([Refereed Conference Paper]).

Schroeder, D.M., Love, M.S., 2004. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of offshore oil facilities in the Southern California Bight. Ocean Coast. Manag. 47,21-48.

Science for Environment Policy, 2012. Offshore exploration and exploitation in the Mediterranean. Impacts on Marine and Coastal Environments. Future Briefs 3, April 2012.

Sheahan, D., AL-Sarawi, M., Aldridge, J., McGowan, T., Kirby, M., Lyons, B., Vannoni, M., 2015. White Paper Presented at the Interspill Conference "Stream Emerging Technologies and Strategies", Amsterdam, 24-26 March 2015.

Simpson, S.L., Spadaro, D.A., O'Brien, D., 2013. Incorporating bioavailability into management limits for copper in sediments contaminated by antifouling paint used in aquaculture. Chemosphere 93, 2499-2525.

Smith, R.W., Vlahos, P., Tobias, C., Ballentine, M., Ariyarathna, T., Cooper, C., 2013. Removal rates of dissolved munitions compounds in seawater. Chemosphere 92, 898-904.

Sousa, A., Ikemoto, T., Takahashi, S., Barroso, C., Tanabe, S., 2009. Distribution of synthetic organotins and total tin levels in Mytilus galloprovincialis along the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58,1130-1138.

Sprovieri, M., Barra, M., Del Core, M., Di Martino, G., Giaramita, L., Gherardi, S., Innangi, S., Oliveri, E., Passaro, S., Romeo, T., Rumolo, P., et al., 2013. Marine pollution from shipwrecks at the sea bottom: a case study from the Mediterranean basin. In: Hughes, T.B. (Ed.), Mediterranean Sea: Ecosystems, Economic Importance and Environmental Threats (Marine Biology: Oceanography and Ocean Engineering), pp. 35-164.

Techera, E.J., Chandler, J., 2015. Offshore installations, decommissioning and artificial reefs: do current legal frameworks best serve the marine environment? Mar. Policy 59, 53-60.

Telfer, T.C., Baird, D.J., McHenery, J.G., Stone, J., Sutherland, I., Wislocki, P., 2006. Environmental effects of the anti-sea lice (Copepoda: Caligidae) therapeutant emamectin benzoate under commercial use conditions in the marine environment. Aquaculture 260,163-180.

Testa, D., 2014. Dealing with decommissioning costs of offshore oil and gas field installations: an appraisal of existing regimes. Oil Gas Energy Law (OGEL) 12(1) (www.ogel. org/article.asp?key=3432).

Tornero, V., Hanke, G., MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, 2015. Technical Review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU concerning MSFD criteria for assessing good environmental status: Descriptor 8. JRC Technical Report EUR 27464 EN. http://dx. doi.org/10.2788/015547.

Tournadre, J., 2014. Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: the growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7924-7932.

UNEP/MAP, 2015. Twelfth meeting of focal points for specially protected areas, Athens, Greece, 25-29 May 2015. Agenda Item 8: Implementation of the Ecosystem

ARTICLE IN PRESS

V. Tornero, G. Hanke / Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Approach to the Management of Human Activities that may Affect the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment in the Framework of the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP)/Barcelona Convention (EcAp). 8.2. Draft Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme. UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.408/6. USEPA, 2010. Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-recreational Vessels less than 79 ft. Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.

Vethaak D., Van Der Meer, J., 1991. Fish disease monitoring in the Dutch part of the North Sea in relation to the dumping of waste from titanium dioxide production. Chem. Ecol. 5 (3), 149-170.

Wasserman, J.C., Barros, S.R., Alves, G.B., 2013. Planning dredging services in contaminated sediments for balanced environmental and investment costs. J. Environ. Manag. 121,48-56.

Willemsen, P.R., 2005. Biofouling in European aquaculture: is there an easy solution? Eur. Aquac. Soc. Spec. Publ. 35, 82-87.

Ytreberg, E., Karlsson, J., Eklund, B., 2010. Comparison of toxicity and release rates of Cu and Zn from anti-fouling paints leached in natural and artificial brackish seawater. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2459-2466.

Zhou, H., 2007. The chemical environment of cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust deposits, the potential impact of exploration and mining on this environment, and data required to establish environmental baselines in the exploration areas. In: ISA (Ed.), Polymetallic Sulphides and Cobalt Rich Ferromanganese Crust Deposits: Establishment of Environmental Baselines and an Associated Monitoring Programme During Exploration, Proceedings of the International Seabed Authority's Workshop, Kingston, Jamaica, 6-10 September 2004, pp. 257-267.