Content uploaded by Therese M. Karlsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Therese M. Karlsson on Feb 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
IPEN logo
X-PRESS PEARL:
A ‘NEW KIND OF OIL SPILL’
A TOXIC MIX OF PLASTICS AND INVISIBLE CHEMICALS
February 2022
X-PRESS PEARL: A ‘NEW KIND OF OIL SPILL’
ii
IPEN is a network of over 600 non-governmental organizations working in more than 120 countries to
reduce and eliminate the harm to human health and the environment from toxic chemicals.
www.ipen.org
Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) is a public interest environmental organization based in
Sri Lanka, established in 2004. CEJ engages in environmental awareness, litigation, and advocacy,
and promotes citizens science.
https://ejustice.lk/
X-PRESS PEARL: A ‘NEW KIND OF OIL SPILL’
A TOXIC MIX OF PLASTICS AND INVISIBLE CHEMICALS
FEBRUARY 2022
Authors
Chalani Rubesinghe, MSc.1, Sara Brosché, Ph.D.2, Hemantha Withanage, BSc.1, Dilena Pathragoda, BSc.1, Therese Karlsson,
Ph.D.2
Analytical team
Grechko, V.3, Möller, M.3, Maixner, J.4, Grambli
č
ka, T.5, Dvo
ř
áková D.5, Urbancová K.5, Drábová L.5, Pulkrabová, J.5
1 Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), Sri Lanka; 2 International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), Sweden; 3 Arnika – Toxics and Waste
Programme, Prague, Czech Republic; 4 Laboratory of X-ray Diffractometry and Spectrometry at the University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Czech
Republic; 5 Department of Food Analysis and Nutrition at the University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic
Front cover photo: (top) Nilantha Ilangumuawa, Unsplash (bottom) @roadtripwithraj, Unsplash
IPEN logo
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IPEN and CEJ would like to acknowledge that this document
was produced with financial contributions from the Government
of Sweden; the Plastic Solutions Fund, a project of Rockefeller
Philantrophy Advisors; and other donors. The views herein shall
not necessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of any of
these donors.
Furthermore, the authors want to thank Mr. Herman Kumara,
National Convener of National Fisheries Solidarity Organization
(NAFSO), Mr. M. Pradeep Laksiri Fernando, Youth &
Environmental Coordinator - NAFSO, Mr. Vincent Fernando,
Subashini Deepa, Coordinator - Sri Vimukthi Fisheries Women
Organization, and Ms. Susila Damayanthi for their assistance in
conducting the survey and interviews with the community.
The authors would also like to thank Vito Buonsante and Jitka
Straková for their valuable input, as well as Ms. Madhushani
Sendanayaka, Mr. Janaka Withanage, Miss. Harshani
Abayawardhana, and the whole CEJ team for their assistance
every step of the way.
© 2021. International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN).
All rights reserved.
IPEN Production Team: Tim Warner, Betty Wahlund
Cite this report as:
Rubesinghe, C., Brosché, S., Withanage, H., Pathragoda, D.,
Karlsson, T. X-Press Pearl, a ‘new kind of oil spill’ consisting of
a toxic mix of plastics and invisible chemicals. International
Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) .
iii
Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Shipping in Sri Lanka ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Events leading up to the fire...................................................................................................................................... 8
After the fire ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Analysis and surveys ................................................................................................................................................14
Impact on local communities .................................................................................................................................. 20
Legal aftermath ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Steps forward ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 28
References .............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix 1. Description of sampling locations ........................................................................................................31
Appendix 2. Analytical results ............................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 3. Data from surveys ............................................................................................................................... 35
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
In May 2021, the cargo ship X-Press Pearl caught fire out-
side of Sri Lanka. After the first wave of air pollution, the
second wave of pollutants hit the beaches. It consisted of
lost cargo, including billions of plastic pellets (microplastics
used to produce plastics). Through summarizing the events
leading up to and following the fire, analyzing plastics found
on the beaches for toxic chemicals, and interviewing 107
fishermen and other locals, this report looks at 1) the chemi-
cal pollutants and their potential consequences 2) the socio-
economic impacts and 3) how to move forward to mitigate
the situation and to prevent future similar disasters.
Throughout the study it has been evident that the conse-
quences from the fire on board X-Press Pearl are, however,
far more complex than just the visible debris found on
the beaches. The analytical results tell a tale of pollutants
matching the complexity of the cargo on board the ship,
confirming that the consequences don’t only consist of the
physical pollutants, but also chemical ones. The fishermen
tell of lost income, destroyed nets, decreased catch, changes
in the sea, and in some cases allergic symptoms following
the accident.
If all the different types of chemicals, metals, and hazardous
cargo leached out, the consequences are comprised of a mix
of endocrine-disrupting bisphenols, metals that don’t have
exposure limits that can be considered safe, cancer-causing
PAHs, toxic plastic additives, and corrosive caustic soda.
With increasing shipping, complex mixtures of chemicals,
and regulations that have not caught up with the currently
prevalent massive container ships, accidents like this must
be considered the oil spills of our time. It is therefore crucial
that prevention, mitigation, and regulatory measures are
adapted to today’s shipping patterns to protect coastal com-
munities and prevent similar disasters in future.
4
BACKGROUND
On the 20th of May 2021 a fire erupted on X-Press
Pearl, a container ship anchored outside of Colombo, the
commercial capital and largest city of Sri Lanka. As the
world watched the ship burn for 13 days, Sri Lanka braced
itself for the inevitable environmental disaster that has later
been described as the worst in Sri Lanka’s history [4].
On board the three-months-old ship [4] were 1,486 ship-
ping containers. Of those, 81 were classified as dangerous
goods [2], such as nitric acid and caustic soda. The others
have been reported to contain a mixture of several tonnes1 of
potentially toxic epoxy resin, plastics, and oil, as well as met-
als such as lead and copper [5].
Following the fire, the contents of the containers started
to leak out into the environment. This led to fishing being
prohibited in large areas along the coast, hundreds of dead
turtles floating ashore, and tonnes and tonnes of waste fill-
ing the beaches.
1 A tonne is equivalent to 1 metric ton.
This accident illustrates a new type of oil spill where coastal
communities are deeply impacted by a toxic mix of oil,
chemicals, plastics, and other wastes. This story is far from
over, and on the following pages we will take you through
how this event has impacted Sri Lanka’s coastal communi-
ties, how it can come to impact the local marine environ-
ment, how there seems to be a lack of accountability, and
how this, in many ways, is the result of a legislation that has
not been adequately adapted for today’s container ships.
Firefighters trying to control the fire on board
X-Press Pearl outside Sri Lanka.
Photo: Nilantha Ilangumuawa/Unsplash
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 5
SHIPPING REGULATIONS
Shipping of dangerous goods at sea
is primarily regulated by the Interna-
tional Convention for the Safety of Life
at Sea (SOLAS) in connection with the
provisions of the International Mari-
time Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code,
the International Convention for the
Prevention of Marine Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL 73/78), and the United
Nation’s Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS).
SOLAS regulates dangerous goods
in chapter VII, which also regulates
chemicals packaged in solid form
and bulk (solids, liquids, and liquified
gases). SOLAS, which was signed in
1914, was last amended in 2016 when
new rules on the weighing of contain-
ers were added, with the intention of
decreasing spills, since misdeclared
weights have previously resulted in
losses at sea [6]. Chapter II-2 of SO-
LAS includes provisions on fire protec-
tion, fire detection, and fire extinction.
In the wake of the accident on X-Press
Pearl, these provisions of SOLAS have
been criticized as outdated, and Bozzi
(2021) states that “they need to be
amended to suit the current era of
large and ultra-large vessels, like X-
Press Pearl”.
The carriage of chemicals in packaged
form must comply with the provi-
sions of the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which
is directly linked to the provisions
of SOLAS chapter VII. Chapter 1.4
of the IMDG Code concerns security
provisions and general provisions for
companies, ships, and port facilities.
In 1.4.1.4 it states that all port facil-
ity personnel “having specific duties,
engaged in the transport of dangerous
goods, should also include elements
of security awareness related to those
goods”.
In MARPOL the prevention of pollution
by packaged harmful substances is
regulated in Annex III, where “harm-
ful substances” are those that are
identified as marine pollutants in the
International Maritime Dangerous
Goods (IMDG) Code. In the case of X-
Press Pearl, it is important to note that
MARPOL also states that every flag
state (i.e., the country where the ship
is registered) has the duty, according
to article 12, to perform investigations
on any maritime casualty of its ships, if
it has caused a “major damaging effect
upon the marine environment” [7].
MARPOL was originally created to
prevent oil spills. For compensation fol-
lowing oil spills that have not been pre-
vented there are two specific relevant
conventions, namely a convention for
civil liability (the CLC convention) and
a convention on the establishment of
an international fund for compensation
for oil pollution damage (the 1971 Fund
convention).
For hazardous and noxious substances
(HNS) on the other hand, there is a
protocol on preparedness, response,
and co-operation to pollution incidents
by hazardous and noxious substances
(the OPRC-HNS Protocol 2000), which
entered into force in 2007 [8]. There
is also an international convention on
liability and compensation for dam-
age in connection with the carriage of
hazardous and noxious substances by
sea (the HNS Convention), which was
adopted in 1996, superseded in 2010,
but has not yet entered into force. The
definition of HNS can differ depending
on which of these contexts it is consid-
ered in. For the purposes of the 2000
OPRC-HNS protocol, HNS is defined as
a substance, other than oil, that can
create hazards for human health, harm
living resources and marine life, dam-
age amenities, or interfere with other
legitimate uses of the sea [9]. For the
purposes of the 2010 HNS convention,
which is more designed for compen-
sation, a HNS is a substance that is
identified in one or more lists in the
International Maritime Organization’s
conventions and codes [10]. Regard-
less of which definition is used, it is
important to note that several of the
substances carried on board X-Press
Pearl would be included.
In addition to international conven-
tions and regulations, there are also
local regulations that apply to ships. In
Sri Lanka, the Marine Pollution Preven-
tion Act No. 35 2008 is the legal back-
ground to Sri Lanka’s national jurisdic-
tion for the enforcement of UNCLOS
and MARPOL. This act also considers
the precautionary principle [7]. It is
administered by the Marine Pollution
Prevention Authority. According to this
act, the owner or the operator of a ship
is liable for any pollution caused by the
discharge, escape, or dumping of any
oil or other pollutant into Sri Lankan
waters [7].
6
SPILLS OF PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS AT SEA
Due to a wide range of preventive mea-
sures oil spills have decreased globally,
but simultaneously the amount of haz-
ardous and noxious substances (HNS)
that are being transported at sea have
increased, which can lead to spills that
are more complicated from a mitiga-
tion perspective as well as from a risk
assessment perspective. Several of the
substances carried on board X-Press
Pearl would be defined as HNS (See
“Shipping Regulations” above).
HNS spills differ from oil spills in
that whereas the oil is expected to
float on the surface, other chemi-
cals can sink, creating toxic, moving
underwater plumes, or float on the
subsurface. These differences mean
that the spills require other types of
mitigation and remediation strate-
gies. It also complicates risk assess-
ment, especially in cases such as
X-Press Pearl where it is not fully
elucidated what has leaked out.
Spills of plastic pellets at sea are also
frequent, and plastic pellets have been
found in the environment since the
1970s. In recent years these spills have
received more attention, which has
also led to increased discussions on ac-
countability, still the local communities
often end up paying most of the cost.
In 2012, 150 tonnes of plastic pellets
were spilled outside of Hong Kong [11].
Volunteers spent three months clean-
ing up beaches, still big mounds of
pellets were found along the beaches
six years later [12].
In 2017, following a storm, 49 tonnes of
plastic pellets were spilled from a con-
tainer ship outside South Africa [13],
and the partial clean-up of the spill
(estimated to 10% of the total spill)
was then paid for by the cargo owners,
the Saudi Basic Industry Corp [14].
In 2019, following spills linked to a
shipping facility in South Carolina, the
organizations Charleston Waterkeeper
and the Coastal Conservation League
reached a $1 million USD settlement
with Frontiers Logistics, that were the
suspected source of nurdles found
along Sullivan’s Island [15].
In 2020, again in South Africa, another
plastic pellet spill of unknown size was
reported. It was confirmed by Plastics
SA that the spill came from a ves-
sel that lost its cargo [16]. In 2020, a
big plastic pellet spill occurred in the
Mississippi River (USA), estimated at
743 million nurdles. The ships operator
CMA CGM group hired a small clean-up
crew after the spill but six months af-
ter the spill pellets kept washing up on
the beaches along the river [17]. In the
North Sea, the same year, 13 tonnes of
pellets were spilled from a ship oper-
ated by SeaTrans Ship Management
due to a storm. Four months later 700
locations were reported to be affected
by the spills and only one of the 13
spilled tonnes of plastics had been col-
lected [12]. The insurance of the ship’s
owners covered some of the cost of
the partial clean-up [12].
Unfortunately, most spills of plastics
and chemicals tend to fly under the
radar, especially if the spills occur fur-
ther out at sea. Lydon calculated that
between October 2020 and January
2021, 3,000 containers were lost in the
Pacific [18], and according to the World
Shipping Council the annual average is
1,382 containers [6]. In 2019, following
another shipping accident where 280
containers were lost at sea, a draft
proposal for a new IMO rule that would
require better reporting of containers
that are lost at sea was submitted by
Vanautu [19]. In 2021, the Maritime
Safety Committee of IMO agreed to in-
clude new output regarding containers
lost at sea, noting the need for contin-
ued work during the two upcoming ses-
sions [20]. Such a rule could address
some of the issues related to lack in
transparency during shipping [18].
Multiple spills and other
accidents are known to
have dumped thousands
of tonnes of plastic pellets
into oceans and waterways
over the past decade.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 7
SHIPPING IN SRI LANKA
Sri Lanka is a land of water. The country’s exclusive eco-
nomic zone is bigger than its land area and it has been a
key connecting point for shipping since ancient times [21].
Since then, Sri Lanka has remained an important connect-
ing spot. In 2018, it had the 15th highest liner shipping con-
nectivity index in the world [22]. The port of Colombo is the
only commercial deep-water port in South Asia, where every
day roughly 300 ships pass through [23].
Today, approximately 90% of world trade goods are trans-
ported by shipping [3] and IMO has estimated that more
than half of the packaged goods and bulk cargoes that are
transported at sea can be regarded as harmful to the envi-
ronment [24]. Shipping accounts for approximately 33%
of all trade-related emissions from fossil fuel combustion,
emissions that are continuously increasing [25].
Container fires exacerbate the pollution, cause severe en-
vironmental disasters, and risk the lives of crew members.
Still, they are quite common. According to the Claudio
Bozzi, Lecturer in Law at Deakin University [5], insur-
ers are notified of fires every two weeks, and of major fires
every 60 days. Historically, engine-fires have often been the
cause of fires, but nowadays they are just as likely to start
due to the cargo itself, often because it has not been prop-
erly declared or stowed, which can lead to leakage or other
damage that can then lead to fires. Annually, over 150,000
cases of undeclared or misdeclared goods are estimated to
be capable of causing fires.
In the case of X-Press Pearl it is thought that the fire was
caused by a leaking container of nitric acid. The details are
not published, but nitric acid is
a strong oxidizing agent which
can cause combustible materials,
including paper, wood and oils,
to ignite spontaneously. Leaking
containers are common on-board
ships. In fact, just a few months
after the fire, another ship in Port
Colombo also had a leak of nitric
acid, which was discovered on its
way to the harbor. In that case
the disaster could be prevented
as the captain notified the local
agents of the leak, who notified
the harbor master. To prevent
further leaks and associated risks
the nitric acid was moved into a
new container [26].
Moreover, less than 2 months after X-Press Pearl caught
fire, another container ship, MSC Messina, caught fire 480
miles outside Sri Lanka’s coast [27]. And the year before
X-Press Pearl caught fire, a fire erupted on board MT New
Diamond, 38 nautical miles from the Sri Lankan shoreline.
The fire was controlled, but approximately 1,700 million
tonnes of fuel leaked into the ocean [28].
It is therefore clear that Sri Lanka’s position as an important
hub in international shipping puts the country at risk for
future environmental disasters, wherefore it is crucial that
the events surrounding X-Press Pearl are thoroughly investi-
gated to prevent history repeating itself yet again.
A container ship leaving Colombo in June 2021.
Photo: Nilantha Ilangamuawa, Unsplash
X-Press Pearl
Flag: Singapore
Built: 2021
Capacity: 2 756 TEU1
Draught: 11.4 m
Length: 186 m
Beam: 34 m
X-Press Pearl is owned by
X-Press Feeders, one of the
20 largest container ship
operators in the world. [3]
1 TEU - Twenty-foot equivalent
units, a measure of how many
20-foot containers that fit.
8
EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FIRE
It has been reported that already in Port Ha-
mad, Qatar, on the 11th of May the crew was
aware of a leaking container of nitric acid in the
hold. The port did not, however, allow them to
offload the container. When the ship entered
Hazira, the port again refused to receive the
container [5].
Sri Lanka received a mayday call about the
fire on the 20th of May. Two days later, explo-
sions were heard and by the 25th the ship was
engulfed by the fire. Fire fighting ships from Sri
Lanka and India collaborated to control the fire
through using foam and water. A dry chemical
powder was also dropped by air. Meanwhile,
containers kept on falling overboard. By the
31st of May the fire was reported to be under
control, and they attempted to tow the boat to
port to minimize the effects on shipping and the
environment, but on the 2nd of June the ship’s
aft started to sink and by the 17th of June the
ship was settled on the seabed [2].
The accident co-occurred with the start of the
monsoon season, wherefore it was decided
that it would not be safe to remove the ship
until after the monsoon season had ended in
September. Sri Lankan authorities decided, as
advised by the Attorney General Department,
to not take the ship into custody. This left the
insurance company P&I Club as the agent
responsible for the shipwreck. They hired the
American company RESOLVE and the Oil Spill
Response Limited (OSRL) to manage the ship
and potential oil spills, respectively. MEPA has
also invited the International Tanker Owners
Pollution Federation (ITOPF) to assist with
damage control [29].
Timeline of the events between the 11 May and 23 June 2021.
11
15
20
22
25
2
9
17
23
22-25
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 9
AFTER THE FIRE
A disaster of this magnitude and complexity is bound to
have a lot of unknowns. It is still not known what or how
much of the cargo has leaked out and the details of the cargo
are not available. However, even if those details were known,
the cargo included such a complex mixture of pollutants
that it would still be hard to predict the risks. Nonetheless,
this accident has had, and will continue to have, grave, long-
lasting impacts.
AIR POLLUTION
The first wave of pollution consisted of the smoke plume
originating from the burning ship and spreading over Sri
Lanka. The smoke plume lasted for approximately 10 days
[2]. The national Building Research Organization conduct-
ed measurements of the air pollution and identified an area
of 120 km2 as vulnerable to high exposure with an estimated
8,000-13,000 tonnes of air pollutants being released [30].
These pollutants may, considering the mix of hazardous
materials on board, have contained a toxic mix of soot,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, a range of hydrocarbons, dioxins, heavy metals,
and furans [2].
MARINE AND COASTAL POLLUTION
The second wave of pollution was the cargo that leaked
out from the containers and was found along the beaches.
On board the ship was a wide array of potentially harm-
ful substances and although it is not
known how much has leaked out from
the ship, the following section goes
through some of the potential conse-
quences that the cargo could have.
Early observations paint a bleak pic-
ture. By the 23rd of July, 307 marine
animals had been found dead along
the coast of Sri Lanka, including 258
turtles, 43 dolphins, and six whales
[31] and since then the reports of dead
animals along the beaches keep on
coming [29].
The dead turtles have in several
cases been reported to have “burnt”
or “bleached” carcasses [32], which
can have been caused by corrosion
from the chemicals [2]. Moreover,
there have been unverified reports of
dissolved nets, wherefore the potential
occurrence of damage on boats cannot
be disregarded [2]. Other sources have
reported that concentrated sludge
collected from the beaches have made the containers warm,
which is indicating a chemical reaction in the sludge [29].
PLASTIC PELLETS
According to the UN environmental advisory mission the
ship carried 1,680 tonnes of plastic pellets. With a weight
of approximately 0.02 g per pellet [33] that equals roughly
84 billion pellets. It is not yet known what quantity of it has
leaked out, but by all indications, this is the largest spill on
record, ever.
Based on previous consequences from plastic spills it is rea-
sonable to assume that the plastic pellets on board X-Press
Pearl will have far-reaching consequences for a long time
and initial modelling suggests that it would reach coast-
lines in the region reaching from Indonesia and Malaysia to
Somalia [2].
By the fourth of August, 899 tonnes of waste had been col-
lected [4], but to date waste such as plastic bags, pellets
and macro plastics are still being collected. In some places,
the plastic pellets have accumulated to reported levels of
two meters and the geographic extent of the plastic spill has
been reported to be the largest on record, and growing [2].
Despite massive clean-up efforts, it will not be possible to
remove all the pellets from the environment and they are ex-
pected to have far-reaching consequences. However, it is not
Fumes from leaking nitric acid on board X-press Pearl.
Photo: Isuruhetti, Wikimedia Commons
10
only the physical impact of the plastic pellets that is worry-
ing. With them they carry plastic additives as well as sorbed
chemicals and metals.
To make matters worse, the pellets are in the same size as
what a lot of marine animals and birds eat, and several ma-
rine species and birds are known to ingest plastics, including
over 180 species of birds. For some this can lead to a false
sense of satiation, or it can block their gastrointestinal tract,
leading to starvation.
Following the accident documentations have been made
of fish with plastic pellets lodged in their gills. Studies of
the effects of plastic particles on fish have shown effects on
several endpoints, including disruption of the endocrine
system, and interference with the immune system, as well as
blockage of gills and the gastrointestinal tract [34].
In the cargo manifest several different types of plastics are
listed. Although the majority are polyethylene, the list also
includes polystyrene, polypropylene, polybutadiene rub-
ber, expandable polymeric beads, and polycarbonates. The
form that these plastics were packaged in is not known but
polyethylene pellets have been frequently reported on the
beaches. Polystyrene is listed as pellets in the cargo list but
both polystyrene and polycarbonate have a density higher
than seawater so they would be presumed to sink and thus
be more frequent in the sediment than on the beaches.
Additionally, the ship carried several types of plastic resins,
including epoxy which is discussed further below. Different
plastic types have different properties, such as density, which
means that the way that they would spread in the water
would be different. They also vary in chemical composition
which means that their inherent toxicity varies.
The potential effects of the plastics become even more com-
plex if we include the many different chemicals that are used
in them. A recent review showed that over 10,000 substanc-
es are used in plastics and of those 2,400 are substances of
concern, of which 50% are not regulated at all [35]. Some
chemicals used in plastics are also known to leach from the
plastics and induce toxic effects [36]. One type of plastic ad-
ditive is benzotriazole UV stabilizers (BUVs). This is a group
of chemicals often used in plastic products that is found in
plastics all over the world [37, 38]. BUVs have been shown
to leach out from plastic pieces and accumulate in birds
upon ingestion [39]. Several BUVs have been shown to
have toxic effects on humans and animals. They can also act
as endocrine disruptors and disrupt the hormonal balance
[40].
Toxic additives are, however, general concerns with plastics
because they lead to negative effects on human and envi-
ronmental health throughout their life cycle. In the context
of X-Press Pearl, it is, however, even more complicated,
because once the pellets are in the water, several different
chemicals can sorb (attach themselves) to the plastics. In
fact, plastics are such good passive samplers that scientists
that study environmental contaminants often use pieces of
plastics to sample what type of pollutants there are in the
water, meaning that, aside from the physical impact of the
plastics, and the potential effects of the wide array of chemi-
cals that are used to produce the plastics, the spilled plastics
can also have adsorbed other chemical contaminants. This is
of course extra concerning in the case of X-Press Pearl, since
the ship carried many different chemicals and on top of that
went through a fire where different fire suppression tech-
niques were used, some of them making use of substances
that also often contain toxic chemicals, such as PFAS.
These chemicals, along with toxic
chemicals in the pellets themselves,
can then leach into animals that
feed on the pellets [38, 39], the
beach sand [41, 42], and the sur-
rounding water [43, 44]. As the
pellets spread vertically in the beach
sand and the water column, hori-
zontally with currents, and as they
are ingested by marine animals and
birds, it therefore poses a substan-
tial risk that they bring toxic chemi-
cals with them.
Following the accident, plastic
pellets and burnt plastic lumps
are continuously making landfall.
Adults and children are collecting
and selling the pellets for LKR 60
per kg (approximately 0.3 USD). No
one knows where the sold pellets are
ending up, and no one knows what
hazards the adults and children sit-
Mirissa harbor May 30th. Photo: Sören Funk/Unsplash
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 11
ting in the sand, collecting the pellets without any protective
clothing, are exposed to [29].
FIREFIGHTING FOAM
Attempts to control the fire on board the ship included
using foam, dry chemical powder, and water. The chemical
content in the powder and the foam is not known, but it is
worth noting that firefighting foams are often associated
with adverse effects on human health and the environment.
It is likely that the foams contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), which are built up of very stable mol-
ecules rendering them the nickname “forever chemicals”.
PFAS are often found in humans [45-47] and have been
associated with several negative impacts on human health,
such as impairments on thyroid hormone function [48] and
foetal development [49].
BUNKER FUEL OIL
The X-Press Pearl carried 348 tonnes of bunker fuel oil [2]
and already on the 25th of May a Tier II oil spill warning was
issued [50]. Based on satellite imagery it was concluded
that oil was continuously flowing out of the ship for nearly
a month. The oil thickness was considered thick enough to,
normally, trigger the deployment of an oil spill response [2].
It is unknown how much oil has leaked out at this point, but
until the sunken ship and its content has been salvaged the
concerns for a more extensive leak of oil and other pollut-
ants remain. Since the fire started in the same season as the
southwest monsoon, which typically occurs between May
and September, this further complicates any mitigation
efforts, such as oil spill containment. Additionally, the ship
carried gear oil and lubricating oil that could also leak out.
In the aquatic environment PAH pollutants are mainly con-
sidered to be derived from fuel (petrogenic) or incomplete
combustion (pyrogenic) [51]. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) are organic compounds with two or more condensed
aromatic rings. They are ubiquitous in the environment and
are known to sorb to plastic particles. After an accident such
as that of X-Press Pearl, which combined both an oil spill,
fire, and floating plastic particles to which the PAHs can
adhere, PAH pollution is also a highly likely consequence.
NITRIC ACID
The fire started due to a leakage of nitric acid, and it is likely
that most of the nitric acid on board was consumed in the
fire. However, any nitric acid that may have leaked out into
the water remains a cause of concern, especially together
with the caustic soda, since their density is higher than that
of seawater and the chemicals are therefore expected to
sink. Mixed nitric acid and caustic soda would generate heat
[24].
CAUSTIC SODA
On board were also 1,040 tonnes of caustic soda (sodium
hydroxide). Caustic soda causes chemical burns and histori-
cal releases into rivers have led to mass deaths of fish and
other aquatic organisms. Although caustic soda typically
dissolves in sea water [52], the UN advisory mission group
indicates that it remains possible that a highly corrosive,
moving, plume of nitric acid and caustic soda has formed on
the seabed [2].
Previous spills of caustic soda have had devastating impacts
on river ecosystems. In 2006, 42,000 gallons (pprox.. 170
tonnes) of 50% caustic soda was spilled into a river in the
USA. Following the spill, hundreds of thousands of dead
fish were soon observed and subsequent analysis indicated
a total kill of fish for 11 miles downstream and a 98% loss
of aquatic invertebrates [53]. The year before, 41,000 liters
of caustic soda was spilled into a Canadian river and it was
estimated that 90% of the free-swimming fish in the river
was killed following the spill (reported in [54]).
EPOXY RESIN
Almost one third of the cargo on board was epoxy resin.
Epoxy resin is toxic to aquatic life. There is not enough
information in the ship’s manifest to assess the risks, but
if it leaks out in liquid form, the epoxy resin can sink and
create a moving plume on the seafloor [2]. It was however
packaged in container types made for dry bulk. Epoxy resin
is also a common cause of occupational contact dermatitis
SUMMARY OF X-PRESS PEARL
CARGO MANIFEST
• 348 tons of bunker fuel
• 9,700 tons of epoxy resin
• 1,680 tons of plastic pellets [2]
• 81 containers carrying dangerous goods,
including: 25 tons of nitric acid, 1,040 tons of
caustic soda, and 210 tons of methanol
Photo: Rinson Chory/Unspash
12
[55]. It is also important to note that most epoxy resins
are made from bisphenols, such as bisphenol A which is a
known endocrine disruptor. Bisphenol A can leach out from
epoxy resins [56] and in aquatic environments it can cause
developmental and reproductive effects on non-mammalian
vertebrates. Moreover, it can affect immune function and
metabolism [57]. It has also been associated with abnor-
malities, behavioral changes, and negative effects on the
cardiovascular system, development, growth, and survival
of aquatic organisms [58]. Exposure to BPA has also been
linked to several adverse health effects in humans such as
cancer, infertility, diabetes, and obesity [59, 60].
METHANOL
The 210 tonnes of methanol from the ship can, if spilled into
the sea, float on the subsurface creating a toxic vapor cloud.
This may adversely impact pelagic marine organisms [2].
Even if the concentrations do not reach lethal levels, tests
on the marine fish Florida pompano show that methanol
can have adverse effects on swimming behavior at sublethal
concentrations [61].
METALS
On board were also several metals, including copper, lead,
and aluminum, as well as lithium batteries. The ship also
carried 474 tonnes of copper “stuff”, further defined as scrap
and slag [29]. Copper slag is a by-product of copper extrac-
tion that can be used as abrasives or fillers in materials [62].
Copper is toxic to a wide range of aquatic organisms [63]. It
is however hard do elucidate the potential effects of the cop-
per on board X-Press Pearl as it is unclear in what form it
was and if it has been spilled, and therefore if it is bioavail-
able or not.
Lead
There were also 187 tonnes of lead on board the ship. Lead
is a toxic metal that accumulates in teeth and bone tissue
after exposure through ingestion, inhalation, or across the
placenta. There are no known levels of exposure in children
that can be considered safe, and the health effects are gener-
ally irreversible and can have life-long impacts [64].
Even low levels of childhood lead exposure can cause de-
velopmental impacts on the central nervous system and the
brain, leading to lower IQ and neurological conditions, but
lead can also affect the circulatory system, the kidneys, and
the skeleton [65]. Lead is also categorized as an endocrine-
disrupting chemical [40].
Lead exposure can also cause health impacts in adults,
including increased risk of high blood pressure and kidney
damage. Even low-level exposure in adults has been shown
to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease
mortality in the USA [66]. One key element in lead toxicity
is its capacity to replace calcium in neurotransmitter sys-
tems, proteins, and bone structure. This alters function and
structure, which leads to health impacts [67].
CLEANUP AND MITIGATION EFFORTS
According to the Marine Environment Protection Authority
(MEPA) in Sri Lanka, cleaning operations have been carried
Conceptual image of the possible pollution that may have leaked out from the ship during and after the fire and
how it could distribute in the water column.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 13
out together with volunteers, Sri Lankan Tri-Forces, and
government officials. By the 25th of June they had cleaned up
around 250 locations from Mannar to Kirinda [68].
During the initial clean-up phase 500-1,000 people per
day were deployed. By the 14th of June 18,973 persons had
participated in the clean-ups [2] and together they had
removed massive amounts of litter from the beaches.
The most polluted beach was observed in the coastal zone
of the Gampaha and Colombo districts, which could be
explained by their proximity to the accident and a north-
ward oceanic transport of the pollutants along the coastline.
Less pollution was observed in the Puttalam and Kalutara
districts [69].
The huge scale of the pollution was further highlighted
by the results achieved by the “Blue
machine”, operated by a local inven-
tor, Mr. Chinthaka Waragoda. His
machine could separate six distinct
kinds of contaminants from the beach
sand, ranging from large burnt plastic
pieces to fine foam. The machine used
fresh water, which was mixed with sand
excavated from the beach, to achieve
gravity separation of different kinds of
substances, from large plastic pieces to
fine foam, from the sand. Despite the
promising results from his approach
the machine was only operated in one
location (Sarakkuwa). MEPA asked him
to stop this initiative, saying that more
strategic methods would be necessary.
They then employed women and people
from the community, said to be trained
to handle the cleaning. A previous
report by CEJ however, has disclosed
that the women employed did not know
how much they would be paid and
feared that they might not receive any
payment at all for their clean-up efforts
[29]. In addition, the Sri Lankan Red
Cross trained and employed around
2,650 people in beach cleanup efforts
under a “cash for work” program in the
Gampaha, Puttalam, Kalutara, Galle,
and Matara districts [69].
The use of protective equipment dur-
ing cleaning has varied over time and
has also differed between the different
groups. In the beginning, people that
were deployed to clean the beaches
used protective suits and gloves, but
later on this changed, and some of the
people that are currently tasked with
the clean-up do not even use gloves,
even though there is yet no available
data on the potential toxicity of the debris washing ashore
from X-Press Pearl.
The UN advisory group suggested a scaled-up floatation ap-
proach [2] to separate the pellets from the sand. Currently
trommels are used instead and only the upper layer of the
sand is targeted [70]. It is likely that this method leaves pel-
lets that are buried deeper into the sand behind, where they
will continue to pollute the environment. Moreover, despite
the massive clean-up efforts, the enormous scale of the spill
will unfortunately likely mean that plastics will continue to
wash up on the beaches for a long time ahead.
The blue machine operated by Mr. Chinthaka Waragoda that separates out six distinct
types of contaminants. The last picture also shows the final cleaned-up sand, and
sand with seashells that will go back to the beach. Photos: Panduka Rubesinghe,
Harshani Abayawardhana
14
ANALYSIS AND SURVEYS
To better understand the impact that this accident has had, two different types of investigations were performed in the three
regions closest to the shipwreck – Gampaha, Colombo, and Kalutara:
1. Plastic pellet samples and burnt lumps were collected from beaches and analyzed for heavy metals, polyaromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), benzotriazole UV stabilizers (BUVs), and bisphenols.
2. Surveys and interviews with people working in the affected areas were performed.
Plastic pellets were still dispersed along
the coast in September 2021, 5 months
after the accident. Photo: Harshani
Abayawardhana
Areas where surveys and sampling of beached
pellets were performed
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 15
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF BEACHED PLASTICS
To better understand the potential toxicity of the plastics,
CEJ sampled plastic pellets from four locations along the
coastline for analysis of their heavy metal and toxic chemi-
cal content.
The samples, consisting of pellets and burnt lumps, were
collected along the coastline from Negombo to Kalutara
along the western province coastal zone (Appendix 1, Table
1).
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Metals
Heavy metals in beached pellets (six subsamples from four
locations) and burnt lumps (eleven subsamples from 3 lo-
cations) were screened using Niton XL3t XRF Analyzer (in
calibration mode “consumer products”) at the Arnika office
in Prague and using Niton XL5 Handheld XRF Analyzer
(in calibration mode “plastics”) in the Laboratory of X-ray
Diffractometry and Spectrometry at the University of
Chemistry and Technology Prague, Czech Republic.
Chemicals
Chemicals were analyzed in pellets from four locations
and burnt lumps from three locations. Analyses of benzo-
triazole UV stabilizers (BUVs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), bisphenols, and polyaromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs) were performed at the Department of
Food Analysis and Nutrition at the University of Chemistry
and Technology Prague, Czech Republic.
BUVs and PAHs were extracted from the pel-
lets using an ultrasonic extraction into a mixture of
hexane:dichloromethane. BUVs were determined using
ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled
with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). PAHs
were analyzed using high performance liquid chromatog-
raphy coupled with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FLD).
PFAS and bisphenols
The analysis of PFAS and bisphenols involved an ultra-
sonic extraction into a mixture of methanol: ethyl-acetate,
followed by determination using UHPLC-MS/MS for
bisphenols and PFAS. FTOHs were analyzed using gas
chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry
operated in positive ion chemical ionization (GC-PICI-MS/
MS).
Plastic pellets and burnt lumps dispersed on the beach at
Sarakkuwa, Gampaha district, Sri Lanka.
Photo: Harshani Abhayawaradhana
16
RESULTS FROM THE BEACHED PLASTICS ANALYSES
Summary of the analytical results
The plastic pellets and burnt lumps collected were analyzed
for several different toxic chemicals and metals. Overall, the
results show that there are several contaminants of concern
associated with the plastic debris from the accident, espe-
cially the burnt lumps.
Several metals, including copper, were present in the
samples. In the burnt lumps, lead and cadmium were also
detected. The beached plastics also contained bisphenol A,
benzotriazole UV stabilizers, and polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs).
For the benzotriazole UV stabilizers, four out of six analyzed
BUVs were identified. UV-326 was found in all analyzed
samples.
Bisphenol A was present in all burnt lumps. It was also pres-
ent in one of the pellet samples, however at a lower concen-
tration than in the burnt lumps. Its presence is likely linked
to the 9,700 tonnes of epoxy resin that the ship carried.
The total concentration of the twelve measured PAHs in the
pellets was more than 20 times higher in samples collected
north of the accident compared to the samples collected
south of the accident.
The concentrations were however even higher in the burnt
lumps (more than a hundred times higher than in the pel-
lets), where the concentrations for several individual PAHs
surpassed the limit values for consumer products estab-
lished in the EU. The concentrations in the lumps were also
higher than concentrations that have been associated with
negative effects on several organisms in sediment and soil
studies.
Pellets
On board the ship was several tons of metals such as copper,
aluminum, and lead. In the marine environment, metals can
sorb to natural particles, and to a lesser extent, to microplas-
tics [71]. Research has also indicated that the co-occurrence
of metals, such as copper, and microplastics can both
decrease [72] and increase [73] the negative effects of the
compounds for marine organisms. Chemical analysis of the
samples showed that the plastic pellets and burnt lumps of
plastics contained several different metals. Calcium, copper,
iron, titanium, and zinc were all detected in all pellet sam-
ples. 83% of the analyzed samples also contained barium
and 50% of them contained bromine. Mercury, manganese,
antimony, tin, and strontium were detected in 17% of the
samples (Table 1).
In comparison to previous studies of chemicals sorbed to
microplastics, copper was found in a similar range here as in
plastic samples from Guadeloupe [74].
All pellet samples contained UV-326 in concentrations
ranging from 31-270 ng/g. BPA was found in one pellet
sample (58 ng/g).
Of the analyzed chemicals, PAHs were the most frequent.
Samples taken north of the accident location typically had
higher concentrations than the samples from beaches locat-
ed south of the accident location. For the PAHs this means
that north of the accident the concentrations were more
than 20 times higher than south of the accident (Graph
1). This matches previous reports of higher levels of vis-
ible pollutants to the north of the accident, which has been
linked to the predominant direction of the currents after the
accident [69].
For the PAHs, Benzo[a]anthracene and Benzo(k)fluor-
anthene were found in three out of four samples, and the
remaining ten PAHs were found in all samples. The concen-
trations for most of the measured PAHs on the pellets are
comparable to other studies of PAHs on microplastics [75,
76]. One difference that is interesting to note is the higher
occurrence of the cancerogenic PAH benzo[a]pyrene. In this
study it was present in all four samples at concentrations
ranging from 0.1-57 ng/g. In Gorman et al. [76] it was found
in 2/12 microplastic samples and in Lozoya et al. [75] the
concentrations found were all below 5 ng/g.
Burnt lumps
The burnt lumps consisted of melted pollutants, including
plastic pellets, and tell a story of a complex pollution pat-
tern.
The burnt lumps had higher concentrations and higher de-
tection frequencies of metals than the pellet samples. Eleven
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Sarakkuwa
Beach
Bopitiya Panadura Kalutara
Sum of 12 PAHs (ng/g)
NORTH OF SHIPWRECK SOUTH OF SHIPWRECK
Graph 1. Concentrations of PAHs on pellets from different
locations.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 17
TABLE 1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR METALS AND OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE BEACHED PLASTIC PELLETS.
Min (ng/g) Max (ng/g) Average (ng/g)
Detection frequency
(%), n=6
Barium (Ba) <LOD 164 88 83
Bromine (Br) <LOD 7 2 50
Calcium (Ca) 119 824 318 100
Cadmium (Cd) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Clorine (Cl) 251 3993 1278 100
Cobalt (Co) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Cromium (Cr) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Copper (Cu) 8 20 14 100
Iron (Fe) 120 597 243 100
Mercury (Hg) <LOD 2 0 17
Manganese (Mn) <LOD 36 6 17
Nickel (Ni) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Lead (Pb) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Antimony (Sb) <LOD 12 2 17
Selenium (Se) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Tin (Sn) <LOD 14 2 17
Strontium (Sr) <LOD 6 1 17
Titanium (Ti) <LOD 87 31 100
Vanadium (V) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Zinc (Zn) 7 62 26 100
TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR METALS AND OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE BURNT LUMPS
Min (ng/g) Max (ng/g) Average (ng/g)
Detection frequency
(%), n=11
Barium (Ba) <LOD 1235 353 91
Bromine (Br) <LOD 30 11 91
Calcium (Ca) 94 4625 1799 100
Cadmium (Cd) <LOD 10 2 27
Clorine (Cl) 337 7460 2459 100
Cobalt (Co) <LOD 163 35 45
Cromium (Cr) <LOD 48 836
Copper (Cu) <LOD 68 23 18
Iron (Fe) 1200 1376 5 4790 100
Mercury (Hg) <LOD <LOD <LOD 0
Manganese (Mn) <LOD 163 38 55
Nickel (Ni) <LOD 14 1 9
Lead (Pb) <LOD 7 2 45
Antimony (Sb) <LOD 18 2 9
Selenium (Se) <LOD 16 2 36
Tin (Sn) <LOD 11 2 18
Strontium (Sr) <LOD 20 882
Titanium (Ti) 229 5127 1931 100
Vanadium (V) <LOD 64 10 27
Zinc (Zn) 34 5960 1558 100
18
subsamples of the lumps were analyzed and in addition
to the metals detected in the pellets, the burnt lumps also
contained cadmium (27%), cobolt (45%), chromium (36%),
nickel (9%), lead (45%), selenium (36%), and vanadium
(27%). Notably, the detection frequencies for mercury (0%),
copper (18%), and antimony (9%) were lower in the burnt
lumps than in the pellets (Table 2).
The copper, lead, cadmium, and chromium were all within
a similar concentration range as previously found in plastic
samples from Guadeloupe [74].
Chemicals were measured in three samples of burnt lumps
and all contained bisphenol A in concentrations between
36.2-504 ng/g. The absence of BPA in all but one pellet
sample, combined with the overall higher concentrations
found in the burnt lumps, indicates that it was not used in
the pellets as an additive. The most likely explanation of the
prevalence of BPA in the burnt lumps is that it originated
from the epoxy resin that was carried on board the ship.
This indicates that the epoxy has leaked out into the envi-
ronment and can now be found on the beaches and likely
also in the water.
Four different benzotriazole UV stabilizers were found in
the burnt lumps. Three of them (UV-328, UV-329, and UV-
234) were however only found in concentrations below 10
ng/g. UV-326 was found in all three samples in concentra-
tions ranging between 69 – 26665 ng/g.
All twelve analyzed PAHs were present in all three samples
of burnt lumps. The total concentrations of PAHs were ap-
proximately 100 times higher in the burnt lumps than in the
pellets. The average concentrations for the individual PAHs
were however up to 200 times higher in the burnt lumps
than in the pellets.
For consumers products, the EU has set limit values for
six of the PAHs measured here [84]. For the individual
PAHs these are set at 1000 ng/g for adults and 500 ng/g for
products directed towards children. The measured concen-
trations in this study exceeded these values for five out of six
PAHs (Graph 2).
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyren
Dibenz[a,h]antracene
Concentration (ng/g)
REACH limit value, products for adults
REACH limit value, products for children
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Sarakkuwa
Sarakkuwa
Kalutara
Graph 2. Concentrations of PAHs in the burnt lumps compared to REACH limit values in consumer
products for children and adults.
Burnt lumps with pellets as found on the sampled beaches.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 19
In fact, here the concentrations were so high that they were
up to six times higher than the REACH limit values for indi-
vidual PAHs in products for adults and twelve times higher
than the limit values for products for children, meaning that
any direct or repeated contact with these lumps should be
avoided, especially since seven of the PAHs found in these
samples are listed as possibly carcinogenic or carcinogenic
to humans according to lists maintained by the Internation-
al Agency for Research on Cancer [77].
There is limited knowledge on the toxicity of PAHs associ-
ated with plastics in the environment. Some comparisons
could however be made with toxicity studies on PAH con-
centrations in sediment and soil. In the Netherlands, they
have established maximum permissible concentrations for
individual PAHs in sediment [78]. Maximum permissible
concentrations (MPCs) are used as limit values under which
negative effects are not expected for 95% of the species in
the sediment ecosystem. When the values measured in the
lumps are compared to the maximum permissible concen-
trations for sediment, 12/12 PAHs are above the MPC in
one of the samples from Sarakkuwa, and 8/12 in the other
sample. In the sample from Kalutara, 11 out of 12 PAHs
were found at concentrations above the maximum permis-
sible concentrations for sediment (Graph 3).
For some of the PAHs the measured concentrations were in
the same size range as the serious risk concentrations. Seri-
ous risk concentrations (SRCs) correspond to concentrations
where negative effects are expected amongst 50% of the
species. Phenanthrene was found at a maximum concentra-
tion of 12254 ng/g and the SRC is at 63000 ng/g. Anthra-
cene was found at a maximum concentration of 1052 ng/g
and the SRC value for sediment is 3000 ng/g. Benzo[ghi]
perylene was found at concentrations up to 4463 ng/g and
the SRC is 10000 ng/g.
Several of the measured concentrations also surpass con-
centrations that, in studies on spiked sediment, has nega-
tively affected several organisms (summarized in [78]). For
example, for pyrene and phenanthrene the observed effects
include decreases in chlorophyll a levels and cell density
for microalgae [79]. Similarly, benzo[a]pyrene surpassed
the no-effect concentrations in soil for some crustaceans
[78]. Moreover, fluoranthene concentrations were in 2/3
samples higher than concentrations that have been as-
sociated with an increased mortality for some amphipods
in sediment [80].
Even if the numbers measured in the pellets and burnt
lumps in this study are not directly comparable to toxicity
studies in sediment or limit values in consumers products,
these high concentrations are still very concerning.
Overall, the results show that the samples analyzed here
contain a wide range of pollutants, mirroring the complexity
of the cargo on board X-Press Pearl. It is therefore impor-
tant to maintain a precautionary perspective when handling
any debris from the ship.
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]antracene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Indeno [1,2,3-c,d] pyrene
Concentration (ng/g)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
Sarakkuwa MPC (Maximum
Permissible
Concentration)
Sarakkuwa
Kalutara
Graph 3. Concentrations of individual PAHs in the burnt lumps compared to maximum permissible
concentrations (MPC) for sediments as identified by Verbruggen et al. (2012).
20
IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES
“We were out fishing at sea, when we saw yellowish
fumes coming from a ship anchored in the outer
harbor. We knew that is unusual. We saw it for 2-3
days. After that, when we came back to shore, we
found out from the media that the ship had caught
fire. We became very worried because it was in a
critical zone for our fishing where there are coral
reefs. We were not informed, but we were afraid to go
fishing there. Then suddenly they imposed a fishing
ban.”
—Fisherman from Negombo, Gampaha district.
Fishing is the backbone of Sri Lanka. The contribution to
Sri Lanka’s GDP is 1.3% (the Fisheries Department, 2020)
and approximately 583,000 persons are employed in the
fishing industry, with a supporting workforce of 2.7 million
(Azmy et al. 2021). Additionally, 60% of all animal protein
consumed in Sri Lanka is fish, which is the main source of
protein among low-income groups (Azmy et al. 2021).
On the 22nd of May, 2021, the first fishing bans were issued.
The extension of the fishing ban area has varied, but at one
point more than 175 square miles were closed to all fishing
activities (The Maritime Executive 4/8 2021). It is unclear
exactly how long the fishing ban lasted and in what area.
According to reports, the no fishing zone was restricted to
a smaller area on the 1st of June and after that it was only
banned between the Pandura river and Ma Oya and up to 16
km off the coast (Warawita, 2021).
In conversations with fishermen during October of
2021, it was evident that they thought the ban was no
longer in place and that they had therefore resumed
fishing in the area. In international news outlets
people talked about a fishing ban existing, but on the
official web pages of Sri Lankan authorities (such
as MEPA, or the Ministry of Fisheries) there was no
information about any such ban. However, later in
December, the previously marked fishing ban area
was revised, and a new ban was introduced, and the
following map was obtained from the Ministry of
Fisheries.
The impact of the X-Press Pearl incident on the
marine environment in Sri Lanka is evident and
obvious, but its impact on the lives of everyone in the
coastal communities and the livelihood of the fishing
community is yet to be identified. Within the fishing
community, there are different kinds of livelihoods all
being affected, including:
• Boat rentals
• Owners of beach seines (a type of large-scale fish-
ing net operated from the beach)
• People sorting fish from nets
• Multi-day boat operators
• One-day boat operators
• Traditional Theppam (raft) fishing gear operators
• Lagoon fishermen
• Fish sellers – small scale
• Fish sellers – stocks / large scale
• Tour guides – Snorkelers / Divers
• Ornamental fish sellers
CEJ took several measures to assess the impact of
the X-Press Pearl ship accident on the coastal com-
No fishing zone revised and in place from 1st December, 2021.
Source: Ministry of Fisheries, Sri Lanka
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 21
munity, with a special focus on fishermen. These included
focus group discussions, interviews with fishermen/ fisher-
women and a survey with 107 representatives of the coastal
community in Gampaha, Colombo, and Kalutara within the
Western province.
A convenience sampling method was used since the timing
of this event overlapped with a heavy spread of the CO-
VID-19 pandemic, when strict travel and gathering restric-
tions were imposed. The interviews with the participants
were conducted by persons residing in each district. Some
initial results from the interviews can be found in a recently
published CEJ report [81]. Below, a more detailed analysis
of the different districts is presented, since the pellet sam-
pling revealed large local differences in pollution levels.
COLOMBO
Twenty individuals were interviewed from the Colombo
district. The majority of the respondents (65%) were de-
pending on fishing. The other categories of employment
were (each person could indicate more than one occupa-
tion): producing beach seines or other types of nets (35%),
productions related to fishing boats (35%), mobile vending
at the beach (15%), government jobs (5%), hotel jobs (15%)
and work in the informal sector (5%) (Graph 4).
The respondents were also asked whether any struggles that
they had experienced related to their income were due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, or the accident. It became clear that
both incidents have impacted their income, but in differ-
ent ways. For people engaged in activities related to fishing
this was especially evident. Whereas the pandemic affected
the access to the market, the accident led to a decrease in
access to the fishing areas and a decreased interest in buying
and consuming fish overall. Before the accident 30% of the
respondents reported a monthly income above 26,000 LKR.
After the accident only 10% of the respondents reported
a monthly income above 26,000 LKR. One of the respon-
dents went from earning over 201,000 to earning between
86,000-120,000 LKR (Graph 7).
Reported impacts included a complete loss of income, dif-
ficulty to sell products, loss of daily income for some time,
destruction of equipment, and a reduction in consumers /
tourists, such as people rejecting to buy fish due to fear of
chemicals in them (Graph 5). Only one person, who works
in a hotel, indicated that his income had not been affected
by the accident.
Additionally, some of the respondents indicated that they
had experienced symptoms of chemical poisoning such as
skin irritation and allergies. Some also reported that they
suffered from depression due to the impact that the accident
had on their income.
“We only got to know about the sinking
ship through television. We don’t know
what was in there or what will happen in
the future. After the accident we saw a lot
of dead turtles and dolphins floating by
the beach. We also saw those plastic-like
beads on the shore. But we don’t know
anything about any chemicals.”
— Rohitha, owner of a beach seine
(Sinhala: Maa dala), Wadduwa beach,
Colombo
Regarding observed changes in the environ-
ment, the respondents in Colombo reported
four main observations: a change in fish
population, a change in the color of the sea
(becoming blackish), observations of a layer
of oil on the surface of the sea and on the
carcasses of turtles, fish, crabs, and mollusc
shells (Graph 6). Additionally, a few said that
they had also observed plastic pellets and
pieces of plastic, unusual odors, a change of
color in dead fish, burnt pieces/debris from
the ship, ash in the surrounding area, and
damaged corals in deep or shallow sea. One
respondent also reported a change of color in
fish nets used after the accident.
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
15
5
7
10
35
14
15
3
17
5
3
65
72
69
35
CSO activist
Selling fish
Making dry fish
Diving to catch ornamental fish
Tour guide
Job in informal sector
Job in a hotel
Government job
Mobile vending at beach
Productions related to fishing boats
Producing seines (beach & other)
Fishing
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentage of respondents (%)
Gampaha
Kalutara
Colombo
Graph 4. Percentage of respondents engaged in each job category in three districts.
22
2
60
45
48
5
7
2
60
3
26
60
52
57
60
50
3
60
7
33
50
75
3
16
35
86
No impact
Loss of income for a shorter period
Impacted by desctruction of equipment
Loss of daily income for some time
Reduction in consumers/tourists
Difficulty selling products
Impacted by destruction of the place
Engaged in livelihood under some restrictions
Complete loss of income
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentage of respondents (%)
Gampaha
Kalutara
Colombo
Graph 5. Types of impacts on income levels and livelihood.
67
24
75
38
90
100
40
81
59
65
55
7
70
40
41
59
20
5
30
12
34
10
10
34
3
15
5
2
10
5
9
A change in fish population
Change in the colour of the sea
Observation of oil layer on the sea
Carcasses of turtles, crabs & mollusk shells
Plastic pellets and pieces of plastic
Odor
A change of colour in dead fish
Burnt pieces/debris of the ship
Ash in the surroundings
Damaged corals in deep or shallow sea
Colour change in fish nets used after accident
Algae washed ashore
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of respondents (%)
Gampaha
Kalutara
Colombo
Graph 6. Environmental impacts as reported by the respondents.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 23
KALUTARA
A total of twenty-nine persons, including three women,
participated in the survey from the Kalutara district. The
majority were involved in activities related to fishing; 72%
were fishermen (Graph 4), 15% were involved in production
activities related to fishing boats, 7% were selling fish, 3%
diving to catch ornamental fish, and 3% were occupied in
making dry fish. Others reported occupations in the infor-
mal sector (7%), working with mobile vending of items such
as clothes, toys, food, etc., at the beach (3%), having govern-
ment employment (3), or working as tour guides (3%).
In the Kalutara district, the changes in income before and
after the accident were quite clear. Before the accident, 28%
of the respondents were in the lower-income range of LKR
15,000-25,000. After the accident, however, a total of 97%
of the respondents were in that same income range. Since
the majority of the respondents were fishermen, this clearly
reflects the drop in fishing industry activities in the area
(Graph 7).
“Fishermen usually do not depend on anyone. They
can usually sustain themselves very well through
their work. 30-35 years ago they even lived quite
prosperously, but then came first the tsunami which
dragged them down to some extent, then with the
coastal erosion their difficulties increased, and then
this ship sank and fish worth 7,000 to 8,000 rupies
could not even be sold for 100 rupies. Even if it was
given away for free, no one would eat it, because of
the rumors saying that it was contaminated with
chemicals and people might end up dead.”
— K.A. Karunarathne, Fisherman, Kalutara North
On the topic of the different types of economic impacts, the
majority said that they had faced a complete loss of income,
could only engage in their livelihood under some restric-
tions, or were impacted by a destruction of their work loca-
tion (One such example was given by a person whose work
was drying fish on the beach. After the accident, the drying
location had been totally ruined due to the plastic pellets
and other debris that had washed ashore, and could there-
fore no longer be used) (Graph 6). Some of the respondents
also said that they faced difficulties in selling their products,
experienced a reduction in consumers /tourists and a loss
of daily income for some time, as well as being impacted by
equipment being destroyed.
“People say that even today (October 2021), there
are no fish that could be caught with a fishing line
here. We used to fish in the area around 3 km from
the beach and the harvest was good. We used to use
floating nets to fish there, but after this incident the
harvest became very scarce and nowadays people
have given up on floating nets, which usually catch
torpedo scad fish, frigate tuna, yellowfin tuna,
small Seer fish, etc. There is almost no harvest now,
not even 2 kg of squid. My neighbor also said that
there wasn’t even a Pony fish in the net that usually
catches fish like Silver-bar fish, Indian herring, etc.”
— K.A. Karunarathne, Fisherman, Kalutara North
In this district one person indicated that they had experi-
enced health effects consisting of difficulty breathing and
having headaches.
For the environmental observations in the Kalutara district
a majority mentioned a change in the fish population, seeing
Percentage of Respondents (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Graph 7. Ranges in income in LKR before May and in September.
24
carcasses of turtles, fish, crabs and mollusc shells, a change
of color in dead fish, and plastic pellets and pieces of plastic
being washed ashore (Graph 6). A few also reported that
they had observed a change in the color of the sea, as well as
observations of a layer of oil on the surface of the sea and on
the burnt pieces and debris from the ship. At Kalutara, three
persons also reported fishing nets having changed color
after the accident.
“No one told us about the possibility of fishing gear
being damaged. We experienced it ourselves. We only
observed that after fishing. When we took the nets
off, we observed some whitened fibers in them, but
nothing worked when trying to remove them. We
could not use those nets anymore and some fisher-
men even burnt them. Officers only came to observe,
no one offered us any compensation.”
— K.A. Karunarathne, Fisherman, Kalutara North
GAMPAHA
The Gampaha district was represented by 58
respondents, including 26 women and 32 men,
living in and around Negombo. As in Kalutara
and Colombo, the majority of the respondents
were working in jobs related to fishing and fish-
eries. 69% worked with fishing and 3% made
dry fish. The others worked with mobile vend-
ing at the beach (17%), had jobs in the infor-
mal sector (10%), or worked with civil society
organizations (3%).
“This accident has affected around 7,000
families engaged in fishing. They lost their
livelihoods. Not only fishermen, but also
those attached to the fishing sector such as
people making dry fish, and people selling
fish, were affected.”
— Reverend Sarath Iddamalgoda, Negom-
bo, Gampaha
A change in the income levels towards low-
income ranges were observed in the Gampaha
district as well (Graph 7). The story in Gampa-
ha was however quite unique, as there are many
strata of income generation. When a boat sails
out to go fishing, there are many that depend on
it. Apart from the owner of the boat, the income
from a catch is also divided among the boat
crew, people who sort the fish from the nets,
vendors of fish stocks, and retail vendors, which
mostly includes women. The income share for
each of these groups would of course vary. In
addition, this industry is connected to several
other businesses, such as making dry fish, like
Jadi, the Sri Lankan style dry fish, making and
mending nets, etc., that provide employment to
the coastal community.
In Gampaha, the respondents emphasized that although
there was already a local impact from COVID-19, people
could still go fishing, and the industry survived even after
going through people’s fear of eating fish due to a spread of
COVID-19 in a local fish market. The impact following the
X-Press Pearl accident, on the other hand, prevented them
from fishing altogether, created a huge vacuum in the fish
consumption, and thereby also in the sales. Even the fisher-
men were afraid of consuming fish as no authority or re-
search were providing clear recommendations as to whether
the fish was safe to eat.
Photo: CEJ, Sri Lanka
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 25
“When this accident happened, there were dead fish
on the shore and when we opened their mouths we
saw tiny balls of plastics, like pearls, inside their
mouths. They did some research on it, but we were
never informed whether the fish was safe to eat or
not. So, as we don’t know, people are afraid to eat it.“
— Merina Roshanthi Fernando , Kuda paduwa,
Negombo, Gampaha
According to the interviews given by the community in
Negombo, before the accident a boat trip would sometimes
earn them around LKR 50,000 to 300,000 per week, while
a small-scale fisherman could earn LKR 7,000 to 10,500 per
week, depending on the catch.
Some of them completely lost this income when they were
unable to go fishing after the accident, especially the opera-
tors of small-fishing gear that operate within 8 km from
land. Some also highlighted that the debris, such as shipping
containers scattered on the seabed, could even damage their
fishing nets. Moreover, some of the respondents explained
that the fish catch dropped very clearly after the accident.
“There were around 14 big fishing nets that were
lost due to the accident, which means a loss of some
hundred thousands of rupies.”
— Merina Roshanthi Fernando, Kuda paduwa,
Negombo, Gampaha
In Gampaha, the majority of the respondents were impacted
through a restriction on their livelihood (60%), destruction
of equipment (57%), and loss of income for a shorter period
of time (48%) (Graph 7). Several respondents also reported
that they experienced difficulties selling their products
(33%), loss of their daily income for some time (26%), and
some even reported a complete loss of income (16%). Only a
few mentioned being impacted by destruction of the loca-
tion where they worked (2%) or a reduction in the number
of consumers/tourists (2%).
Relating to health symptoms, one of the respondents men-
tioned skin irritation and allergic reactions.
In Gampaha, the respondents highlighted the damage on
the environment made by the plastic pellets, the effects on
fish population, observations of carcasses of turtles, fish,
crabs and molluscs, burnt pieces and debris of the ship
washing up on the beach, observations of a layer of oil on
the sea surface, a change in color of the sea, and ash land-
ing in the surroundings and on the beach (Graph 6). A few
respondents mentioned noticing an odor, and a change of
color in dead fish. Five respondents reported damage to the
fishing nets consisting of a change of color in fish nets used
after the accident.
LACK OF INFORMATION
Several of the respondents highlighted a lack of informa-
tion regarding fishing bans, a need for protective equipment
during beach clean-ups, a lack of information on the safety
of eating marine catch, and a risk of damage to fishing nets
and other property.
Regarding the awareness about the potentially hazardous
nature of the debris that drifted ashore, the responses show
that the respondents were unaware of it. Most of them had
participated in beach clean-ups without any personal pro-
tective equipment, PPE, (67%), because they thought PPEs
were not necessary (15%), they didn’t know if they were nec-
essary (15%), or because PPEs were not provided to them
(62%). Some of them avoided going to the beach at the time
of the accident (17%) and refrained from touching things
that had washed ashore from the accident (94%), while
others collected those items (6%) and went to the beach
specifically to watch the accident (63%), thereby potentially
exposing themselves to toxic fumes and compounds being
transported by water and air.
Traditional small-scale artisanal fisheries such as Theppam
(raft-fishing) were the most affected by the fishing ban, as
they were not able to travel outside the fishing-ban zone.
26
LEGAL AFTERMATH
It is not yet fully elucidated who bears the responsibility
for the accident on board the X-Press Pearl and the follow-
ing events. Sri Lanka has submitted claims and launched
investigations, but the outcome of these is still not known.
However, from initial reports it seems that there were many
culprits along the way and that the accident could and
should have been avoided. Who bears the responsibility for
which part is important to assess, not only for issues related
to compensation for the local communities, but also to pre-
vent future accidents. There are currently several ongoing
legal cases concerning the accident, both on a national and
an international level.
Furthermore, following the accident Sri Lanka called on the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) to classify plas-
tic pellets as hazardous substances, in consideration of the
impact caused by the spills in Sri Lanka [82]. During the
IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
77th meeting the proposal was subsequently referred to
the Sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response
(PPR) [83].
ONGOING CEJ WORK
Under the case no. CA/WRT/383/21, CEJ has filed a lawsuit
with a plea towards the authorities involved in the mitiga-
tion responses. In the case they are, among other things,
requesting the authorities to:
• Conduct an independent and impartial investigation
into the fire to ascertain the cause and parties respon-
sible.
• Assess the environmental damage caused by the acci-
dent
• Assess the damage caused to the fisheries industry, fish-
ing communities and the tourism industry
• Assess the health impacts
• Income loss compensations for people involved in the
fishing and tourism industries.
Furthermore, the case pleads the Honorary Attorney general
to take necessary actions to obtain compensation in terms
of the provisions of the Marine Pollution Prevention Act No.
35 of 2008 or any other applicable laws, and to dispose of
the plastic pellets/nurdles and other debris of X-Press Pearl,
which are collected and stored in containers, in an envi-
ronmentally friendly manner. Within the case they further
plead the respondents to formulate a national policy and/or
contingency plan to augment marine safety.
CEJ has also filed the case SC FR 168/21, representing the
fishing communities. In this case they evoke the fundamen-
tal rights of the communities and the right to equal protec-
tion by the law for all citizens and future generations, as
stated in the Sri Lankan constitution Furthermore, they re-
quest the responsible authorities to conduct an independent
and impartial investigation and to assess the damage caused
to the fishing industry, the fishing community and the tour-
ism industry. They also ask that the affected communities
be compensated for the damages suffered. The case further
requests the respondents to make a preliminary and a final
report on the damage and health impacts caused by the X-
Press Pearl incident and also that they formulate a National
Policy and/or Contingency Plan to augment maritime safety.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 27
STEPS FORWARD
Although we wish that this story would end here, the real-
ity is that the environmental disaster along the coast of
Sri Lanka will continue unfolding for a long time to come.
Many question marks remain on what kind of consequences
this will bring, both in the medium and long term. From the
events as described here, there are however a set of lessons
that ought to be learnt and several immediate steps that
need to be taken to mitigate the damage, support the local
community, and prevent future similar disasters.
The accident in Sri Lanka is extraordinary in its size and
impact, but it is not an isolated event. With increasing
shipping across the world, coastal communities, already
exposed to effects from climate change and the transbound-
ary marine circulation of waste and chemicals, are extremely
vulnerable and there is an unforgivable lack of accountabil-
ity for companies that transport hazardous waste at sea.
The events leading up to and following the accident include
several key moments when the disaster could
have been minimized or prevented if the people
involved would have assumed their responsibility.
Notably, in the case of X-Press Pearl, the leak was
known nine days prior to the fire, and two ports
have been reported to deny the ship offloading
the leaking containers. This inaction and passive
stance shown by several of the involved parties
will, if left unresolved, continue to cause catastro-
phes putting the lives of crews, coastal communi-
ties, and marine ecosystems at risk.
These issues also need to be addressed on an
international level. With more and more ship-
ping taking place by sea, over 1,000 shipping
containers being lost at sea every year and ship
fires being reported every second week, the cur-
rent system is not fit to prevent accidents and
environmental pollution on this scale.
Several of the accidents that have occurred dur-
ing the last few years have been linked to poor
cargo lashing, which has also been suspected
in the case of X-Press Pearl. This means that
current conventions need to be better enforced,
SOLAS needs to be updated to match today’s
large container ships and there is an urgent need
for more transparency so that when accidents
happen, risk assessments and suitable mitigation
measures are possible to roll out quickly.
The plastic spills following X-Press Pearl are the largest ever
recorded, to date. Plastic pollution spills at sea are however
common and historically they have been seen as inert/harm-
less. With the research that has emerged during the last
decades, showing that plastic pollution causes a wide range
of negative effects on the environment, it is important that
regulations for shipping at sea reflect this improved under-
standing.
Historically, a lot of shipping regulations have been directed
towards the prevention and mitigation of oil spills. Consid-
ering that today’s container ships are transporting more and
more complex mixtures of chemicals and plastics it is crucial
that the convention for the new time reflects these chal-
lenges and is enforced in a way that actively prevent spills of
toxic chemicals, plastics, and oil, to avoid the ecological di-
sasters that these mixtures can cause on coastal and marine
ecosystems.
Photo: Jalitha Hweage/Unsplash
28
RECOMMENDATIONS
LOCAL COMMUNITY
Take a precautionary approach to any debris on the beach
potentially originating from the ship. Avoid touching it
without gloves until potential risks can be ruled out.
REGULATORY BODIES IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES/
NATIONS
The frequency with which containers are lost overboard and
with which fires are reported on container ships indicates
that these types of accidents can easily happen again. Coast-
al countries, especially those that are close to major shipping
lanes or serve as crucial shipping hubs, such as Sri Lanka,
need to ensure that they are sufficiently prepared in the case
of a spill of hazardous and noxious substances. Some aspects
to consider in preparing for the future is:
• Ensure that proper information dissemination and clear
communication channels are established.
• Develop both preventive and mitigation strategies to
respond to future spills/accidents within your exclusive
economic zone and ensure that each port has designated
persons with adequate knowledge on hazardous and
noxious substances.
• Develop strategies on fishing zone bans, when to start,
what parameters to measure to decide the extent in time
and space, and what are suitable communication chan-
nels for them.
• Ratify the hazardous and noxious spills convention
(HNS convention).
• Determine how to best support the affected local com-
munities as soon as possible.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Considering that shipping is in its nature connected to
transboundary movements of goods, it is however crucial
that the international community works together to prevent
and mitigate risks related to shipping accidents. To do so, it
is important that:
• Safety of life at seas (the SOLAS Convention) is ad-
equately adapted to today’s large container ships.
• There is a clear responsibility for harbors involved in
handling dangerous goods to help prevent accidents
and that there are designated persons with adequate
knowledge on hazardous and noxious substances in the
harbor.
• A compensation program for spills of plastics and
chemicals is put into place and that the HNS convention
is ratified.
• Setup strategies for monitoring of pollutants after spills
of plastics and chemicals spills, to make it possible to
provide early advise on suitable restrictions for different
activities such as fishing.
• A system for reporting lost containers and their content
is adopted to facilitate mitigation and prevention strate-
gies.
• Plastic pellets are classified as hazardous substances.
• Sri Lanka receives support in investigating the conse-
quences of the accident, as well as the issues related to
responsibility and accountability.
• Sri Lanka receives support in mitigating the effects of
the accident on human health and the environment.
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 29
REFERENCES
1. Marine Traffic. X-Press Pearl. 2021 January 2022; Available from: https://
www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6450863/mmsi:563118200/
imo:9875343/vessel:X_PRESS_PEARL.
2. Partow, H.L., C., Le Floch, S., & Alcaro, L., X-PRESS PEARL MARITIME
DISASTER SRI LANKA REPORT OF THE UN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY
MISSION JULY 2021. 2021, UN Environmental Advisory Mission.
3. International Chamber of Shipping. Shipping and World Trade: Top Con-
tainership Operators. 2021 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.
ics-shipping.org/shipping-fact/shipping-and-world-trade-top-containership-
operators/.
4. The Maritime Executive, Sri Lanka Seeks to Expedite Removal of X-Press Pearl,
in The Maritime Executive. 2021.
5. Bozzi, C., Could Sri Lanka’s ship fire have been avoided? Here’s what we can
learn from the shocking environmental disaster, in The Conversation. 2021.
6. World Shipping Council, Containers lost at sea - 2020 Update, W.S. Council,
Editor. 2020.
7. Kularatne, R.K.A., Sri Lanka’s legal framework for marine pollution control: an
evaluation of the Marine Pollution Prevention Act, No. 35 of 2008. Journal of the
Indian Ocean Region, 2020. 16(3): p. 244-267.
8. CHEMSAR. Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution
Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol).
October 2021; Available from: https://chemsarportal.com/other-documents/
regulation/preparedness-prevention-and-response/protocol-on-preparedness-
response-and-co-operation-to-pollution-incidents-by-hazardous-and-noxious-
substances-2000-oprc-hns-protocol/.
9. IMO. Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution Inci-
dents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol). 2019.
November 2021; Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/
Pages/Protocol-on-Preparedness,-Response-and-Co-operation-to-pollution-
Incidents-by-Hazardous-and-Noxious-Substances-(OPRC-HNS-Pr.aspx.
10. ITOPF. Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS). 2022; Available from:
https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/hazardous-and-
noxious-substances-hns/.
11. Rochman, C.M., Plastics and priority pollutants: a multiple stressor in aquatic
habitats. 2013, ACS Publications.
12. Gravier, A.H., G., PLASTIC GIANTS POLLUTING THROUGH THE BACK-
DOOR : THE CASE FOR A REGULATORY SUPPLY-CHAIN APPROACH TO
PELLET POLLUTION. 2020, Surfrider foundation.
13. Nqayi, Z. Update on plastic nurdles incident along Kwazulu Natal Coastline.
2017; Available from: https://www.dffe.gov.za/mediarelease/updateplasticon-
nurdlesincidentalongkwazulunatalcoastline#.
14. Boonsaier, J., Nurdle spill covers South African beaches in plastic, in Trade
Winds The Global Shipping News Source. 2020.
15. Kelly, S., $1 Million Nurdle Spill Settlement Shines Light on Plastic Pollution
During Shipping. DeSmog, 2021.
16. Ishmail, S., WATCH: Transparency called for after plastic nurdle spill contami-
nated Cape coastline, in IOL. 2020.
17. Baurick, T., New nurdles: More plastic pellets are washing up in New Orleans,
renewing calls for cleanup, penalties. houmatoday, 2021.
18. Lydon, T., 3,000 Shipping Containers Fell Into the Pacific Ocean Last Winter, in
The Reveletor. 2021, Center for Biological Diversity.
19. European Commission, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Union
submission to the 102nd session of the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO
from 13 – 22 May 2019 in London, concerning a Union commenting paper
on the new output on containers lost at sea in application of the action plan to
address marine plastic litter from ships, submitted by Vanuatu, C.o.t.E. Union,
Editor. 2020.
20. IMO. Maritime Safety Committee 103rd session (MSC 103). 2021; Available
from: https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MSC-
103rd-session.aspx.
21. Bopearachchi, O., Archaeological evidence on shipping communities of Sri
Lanka. Ships and the Development of Maritime Technology in the Indian
Ocean, 2002: p. 92-127.
22. Indexmundi. Liner shipping connectivity index (maximum value in 2004 =
100) - Country Ranking. 2019; Available from: https://www.indexmundi.com/
facts/indicators/IS.SHP.GCNW.XQ/rankings.
23. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka: A Maritime & Logistics Hub. 2016,
Compiled by Verité Research.
24. Helcom, Response to accidents at sea involving spills of hazardous substances
and loss of packaged dangerous goods. 2002.
25. Walker, T.R., et al., Environmental effects of marine transportation, in World
Seas: an environmental evaluation. 2019, Elsevier. p. 505-530.
26. DailyNews, SLPA controls chemical leak aboard ship at Colombo Port. 2021.
27. SriLankaPortsAuthority, Fire on MSC Messina. 2021.
28. Arachchige, U.S., et al., The Impact of Shipping on Marine Environment-A
Study of Sri Lankan Water Ways. 2021.
29. Withanage, H., Science, politics and corruption of the X-Press Pearl incident.
2021, Center for Environmental Justice.
30. NBRO. Air Pollution Impact due to the Firing of MV X-press Pearl Ship
nearby Colombo Port. 2021; Available from: https://www.nbro.gov.lk/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=336:air-pollution-impact-due-to-
the-firing-of-mv-x-press-pearl-ship-nearby-colombo-port&catid=8&Itemid=190
&lang=en.
31. Warawita, P., 307 animals dead since ship fire, in The Morning. 2021.
32. Thornton, R.a., Dead turtles and waves of plastic show Sri Lankan ship disas-
ter’s deep ramifications, in CNN. 2021.
33. Karlsson, T.M., et al., The unaccountability case of plastic pellet pollution. Ma-
rine pollution bulletin, 2018. 129(1): p. 52-60.
34. Espinosa, C., M.Á. Esteban, and A. Cuesta, Microplastics in aquatic environ-
ments and their toxicological implications for fish. Toxicology–new aspects to
this scientific conundrum. InTech, Rijeka, 2016: p. 113-145.
35. Wiesinger, H., Z. Wang, and S. Hellweg, Deep Dive into Plastic Monomers, Addi-
tives, and Processing Aids. Environmental Science & Technology, 2021.
36. Zimmermann, L., et al., Plastic products leach chemicals that induce in vitro
toxicity under realistic use conditions. Environmental science & technology,
2021. 55(17): p. 11814-11823.
37. Brosché, S., et al., WIDESPREAD CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF RE-
CYCLED PLASTIC PELLETS GLOBALLY. 2021.
38. YAMASHITA, R., et al., Plastic additives and legacy persistent organic pollut-
ants in the preen gland oil of seabirds sampled across the globe. Environmental
Monitoring and Contaminants Research, 2021. 1: p. 97-112.
39. Tanaka, K., et al., In vivo accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals into seabird
tissues. Current Biology, 2020. 30(4): p. 723-728. e3.
40. Flaws, J., et al., Plastics, EDCs and Health. Washington DC: Endocrine Society,
2020.
41. Kwon, B.G., et al., Global styrene oligomers monitoring as new chemical con-
tamination from polystyrene plastic marine pollution. Journal of hazardous
materials, 2015. 300: p. 359-367.
42. Kwon, B.G., S.-Y. Chung, and K. Saido, Sandy beaches as hotspots of bisphenol A.
Environmental Research, 2020. 191: p. 110175.
43. Menicagli, V., E. Balestri, and C. Lardicci, Exposure of coastal dune vegetation
to plastic bag leachates: A neglected impact of plastic litter. Science of The Total
Environment, 2019. 683: p. 737-748.
44. Teuten, E.L., et al., Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the
environment and to wildlife. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B:
biological sciences, 2009. 364(1526): p. 2027-2045.
45. Tao, L., et al., Perfluorinated compounds in human breast milk from several
Asian countries, and in infant formula and dairy milk from the United States.
Environmental science & technology, 2008. 42(22): p. 8597-8602.
30
46. Ingelido, A.M., et al., Serum concentrations of perfluorinated alkyl substances
in farmers living in areas affected by water contamination in the Veneto Region
(Northern Italy). Environment international, 2020. 136: p. 105435.
47. Worley, R.R., et al., Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in human serum and
urine samples from a residentially exposed community. Environment interna-
tional, 2017. 106: p. 135-143.
48. Kim, M.J., et al., Association between perfluoroalkyl substances exposure and
thyroid function in adults: A meta-analysis. PloS one, 2018. 13(5): p. e0197244.
49. Szilagyi, J.T., V. Avula, and R.C. Fry, Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their
effects on the placenta, pregnancy, and child development: A potential mecha-
nistic role for placental peroxisome proliferator–activated receptors (PPARs).
Current Environmental Health Reports, 2020: p. 1-9.
50. EconomyNext, X-Press Pearl entered Hazira and Hamad ports before reaching
Sri Lanka: owners, in Economynext. 2021.
51. Honda, M. and N. Suzuki, Toxicities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for
aquatic animals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 2020. 17(4): p. 1363.
52. Marchand, M., Chemical spills at sea: case studies. Handbook of Hazardous
Materials Spills Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
53. Creek, S.P. and S. Creek, Aquatic biological investigation in response to the June
30, 2006 Norfolk Southern train derailment and sodium hydroxide release.
2006.
54. McArthur, M. and E. Wind, Amphibian Assessment Following the Accidental Re-
lease of Sodium Hydroxide into the Cheakamus River, British Columbia. 2007.
55. Holness, L.D. and J.R. Nethercott, Results of testing with epoxy resin in an oc-
cupational health clinic population. Dermatitis, 1992. 3(4): p. 169-174.
56. Bae, B., J. Jeong, and S. Lee, The quantification and characterization of
endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A leaching from epoxy resin. Water Science and
Technology, 2002. 46(11-12): p. 381-387.
57. Canesi, L. and E. Fabbri, Environmental effects of BPA: focus on aquatic species.
Dose-Response, 2015. 13(3): p. 1559325815598304.
58. Wu, N.C. and F. Seebacher, Effect of the plastic pollutant bisphenol A on the
biology of aquatic organisms: A meta‐analysis. Global change biology, 2020.
26(7): p. 3821-3833.
59. Almeida, S., et al., Bisphenol A: Food exposure and impact on human health.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2018. 17(6): p. 1503-
1517.
60. Ma, Y., et al., The adverse health effects of bisphenol A and related toxicity
mechanisms. Environmental research, 2019. 176: p. 108575.
61. Baltz, D., et al., Toxicity and sublethal effects of methanol on swimming perfor-
mance of juvenile Florida pompano. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, 2005. 134(3): p. 730-740.
62. Gorai, B. and R. Jana, Characteristics and utilisation of copper slag—a review.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2003. 39(4): p. 299-313.
63. Brooks, S.J. and M. Waldock, Copper biocides in the marine environment, in
Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides. 2009, Springer. p. 413-428.
64. WHO. Lead poisoning. 2021; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/
fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health.
65. Needleman, H., Lead poisoning. Annu Rev Med, 2004. 55: p. 209-22.
66. Lanphear, B.P., et al., Low-level lead exposure and mortality in US adults: a pop-
ulation-based cohort study. The Lancet Public Health, 2018. 3(4): p. e177-e184.
67. Verstraeten, S.V., L. Aimo, and P.I. Oteiza, Aluminium and lead: molecular
mechanisms of brain toxicity. Arch Toxicol, 2008. 82(11): p. 789-802.
68. MEPA. Nurdles and Debris Cleanup Update. 2021; Available from: https://
mepa.gov.lk/nurdles-and-debris-cleanup-update/.
69. IFRC, Operation Update Report Sri Lanka: Cargo Ship Fire. 2021, International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Creschent Societies.
70. Razeek, T., Battle to Clear Our Beaches Has Only Just Begun, in Ceylon Today.
2021.
71. Chen, C.C., et al., Copper Adsorption to Microplastics and Natural Particles in
Seawater: A Comparison of Kinetics, Isotherms, and Bioavailability. Environ-
mental Science & Technology, 2021. 55(20): p. 13923-13931.
72. Xiao, B., et al., Combined effects of copper and microplastics on physiological
parameters of Tubastrea aurea corals. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 2021: p. 1-7.
73. Santos, D., et al., Single and combined acute and subchronic toxic effects of mi-
croplastics and copper in zebrafish (Danio rerio) early life stages. Chemosphere,
2021. 277: p. 130262.
74. Cormier, B., et al., Chemicals sorbed to environmental microplastics are toxic to
early life stages of aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
2021. 208: p. 111665.
75. Lozoya, J., et al., Plastics and microplastics on recreational beaches in Punta del
Este (Uruguay): unseen critical residents? Environmental Pollution, 2016. 218:
p. 931-941.
76. Gorman, D., et al., Organic contamination of beached plastic pellets in the South
Atlantic: Risk assessments can benefit by considering spatial gradients. Chemo-
sphere, 2019. 223: p. 608-615.
77. IARC. IARC Monographs on the identification of carcinogenic hazards to
humans. 2021; Available from: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifi-
cations.
78. Verbruggen, E., Environmental risk limits for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs): For direct aquatic, benthic, and terrestrial toxicity. 2012.
79. Chung, M., et al., Comparative toxicity of hydrophobic contaminants to microal-
gae and higher plants. Ecotoxicology, 2007. 16(5): p. 393-402.
80. Swartz, R.C., et al., Toxicity of fluoranthene in sediment to marine amphipods:
A test of the equilibrium partitioning approach to sediment quality criteria.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal, 1990. 9(8):
p. 1071-1080.
81. CEJ, Public perception study on The socio-economic impact resulted by X-Press
Pearl ship accident 2021. 2022.
82. Chemical Watch, Sri Lanka asks international body to classify plastic pellets as
hazardous substance, in Chemical Watch. 2021.
83. IMO. IMO moves ahead on GHG emissions, Black Carbon and marine litter.
2021; Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/
pages/MEPC77.aspx.
84. ECHA (2018) Guideline on the scope of restriction entry 50 of Annex XVII to
REACH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in articles supplied to the general
public https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/106086/guideline_entry_50_
pahs_en.pdf/f12ac8e7-51b3-5cd3-b3a4-57bfc2405d04
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 31
APPENDIX 1. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF BEACH SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Coordinates
Brief description of beach location (mainly in
relation to the pollution
source) Other comments
7° 6’41.61”N
79°50’32.46”E
Sarakkuwa, the sampling location is considered the
most affected by plastic pellets, which was evident
when observed. It’s a sandy beach and along the
tide line and towards the land the pellet contamina-
tion was immense. Pellets could be observed in an
excavated pit to a depth of around 1.5- 2 meters.
Along the beach towards the south
there is a rocky reef where a large
number of shells of dead small mus-
sels were found, along with some
dead crabs.
6°42’38.00”N
79°54’6.00”E
In Panadura, the presence of pellets even on a day
with rough sea and frequent swash, was obvious.
Most often, they were found among other debris on
the shore. The location is originally a beach park
maintained by the municipal council of Panadura,
but due to the pandemic there were no people, ex-
cept for a few coming to jog or catching sand fleas
(mole crabs or sand crabs). The beach seemed rela-
tively polluted with plastics, slippers, fishing nets,
and other general waste that comes with the swash
motion of the waves. There was also an abandoned
vessel, partly scrapped, on the beach.
There was a warning sign indicat-
ing, “Danger: strong currents” at
the location. Even so, pellets were
abundant at the site as they often are
washed ashore with the swashing of
the waves.
6°36’24.00”N
79°56’55.00”E
At Kalutara North, the pellets were abundant
among the debris. On the day of sampling, a dead
turtle was found washed ashore. At a glance, the
amount of plastic debris seemed comparatively low,
but it wasn’t hard to find a discarded tungsten bulb
and some mobile phone batteries, among other
household waste.
Except for very few coming to take
a walk or bathe their dog, the beach
area looked empty. There were how-
ever a number of hotels and lodges
by the coastline.
At Kalutara North, this piece of burnt plastic was
found among the debris. We also found a discarded
phone battery among the debris.
7° 3’55.00”N
79°51’8.00”E
Bopitiya, a sandy beach with a rock reef almost
inundated in waves. Pellets were abundant at one
side of the beach. Two dead turtles were observed.
One seemed to have died a long time before. People
seemed quite indifferent towards the dead turtles,
yet their opinion was that these turtles had died be-
cause they had fed on algae on the ship. Two fishing
vessels were observed in the near shore area. The
beach seemed to carry a lot of debris, both plastic
and plant debris. Among it, plastic pellets as well
as small pieces of burnt plastics were identified. We
also observed a log with burnt plastic pellets.
We observed three women collect-
ing firewood on the beach. We could
observe algae on the inundated rock
reef. Also, there were rock crabs in
a rock wall built at some portions of
the beach.
32
APPENDIX 2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
TABLE 1 CONCENTRATION OF ANALYZED METALS (NG/G)
Location
Sample
type Ba Balance Br Ca Cd Cl Co Cr Cu Fe Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Ti VZn
Sarakkuwa
Pellets
97 999229 <LOD 128 <LOD 251 <LOD <LOD 15 1 24 <LOD 36 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 40 <LOD 62
75 999007 <LOD 221 <LOD 526 <LOD <LOD 8 120 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 14 <LOD 14
94 998562 2388 <LOD 576 <LOD <LOD 15 272 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 41 <LOD 29
Burnt lump
1222 9 7 9 474 16 4625 <LOD 337 <LOD 48 <LOD 5004 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 16 <LOD 15 3243 <LOD 5960
1235 980182 22 1933 <LOD 3509 35 <LOD 20 5689 <LOD <LOD <LOD 6 <LOD 4 11 20 242 7 <LOD 4848
<LOD 991937 3 1003 7 400 <LOD <LOD 12 5362 <LOD 54 <LOD 2 <LOD 2 <LOD 5 411 <LOD 787
158 992985 1 1632 <LOD 1070 <LOD <LOD 20 3192 <LOD 32 <LOD 4 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 229 <LOD 650
106 994423 <LOD 1112 10 1152 <LOD 19 26 1809 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 18 <LOD <LOD 3 1166 <LOD 114
506 982439 30 2922 <LOD 2588 110 12 <LOD 7298 <LOD 95 14 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 19 2427 18 1462
160 992936 71233 <LOD 803 58 <LOD 22 3278 <LOD 30 <LOD 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD 11 824 <LOD 585
Panadura Pellets 99 998533 <LOD 119 <LOD 992 <LOD <LOD 20 208 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 6 <LOD 11
164 994216 7 824 <LOD 3993 <LOD <LOD 19 597 2 <LOD <LOD <LOD 12 <LOD 14 6 87 <LOD 32
Kalutara Burnt lump 104 981542 4 3266 <LOD 7141 <LOD <LOD 68 1200 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 5127 <LOD 1511
Bopitiya
Burnt lump <LOD 998213 1 228 <LOD 1327 <LOD <LOD 8 137 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 7
Pellets
190 981323 14 94 <LOD 1388 163 <LOD 54 1 376 5 <LOD 163 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 4 2428 64 263
63 995008 3 7 76 7 1206 <LOD <LOD 10 1850 <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD 3 1008 <LOD 34
140 983893 20 1192 <LOD 7460 22 8 19 424 6 <LOD 47 <LOD 7 <LOD 2 9 8 1951 31 926
APPENDIX 2 TABLE 2 CONCENTRATION OF ANALYZED CHEMICALS (NG/G)
Location Sarakkuwa Panadura Kalutara Bopitiya
Sample type Pellets Burnt lump Pellets Pellets Burnt lump Pellets
PFBA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFPeA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFHxA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFHpA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFOA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFNA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFUnDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFDoDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFTrDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFTeDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFHxDA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFODA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFPrS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFBS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFPeS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFHxS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 33
Location Sarakkuwa Panadura Kalutara Bopitiya
Sample type Pellets Burnt lump Pellets Pellets Burnt lump Pellets
PFHpS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
br-PFOS ng/g <0,01 <0,01 <0,01 <0,01 <0,01 <0,01 <0,01
L-PFOS ng/g <0,04 <0,04 <0,04 <0,04 <0,04 <0,04 <0,04
PFNS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFDS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFUnDS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFDoS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFTrDS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
PFOSA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
N-MeFOSA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
N-EtFOSA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
HFPO-DA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
NaDONA ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
9Cl-PF3ONS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
11Cl-PF3OUdS ng/g <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
FBET ng/g <0,80 <0,80 <0,80 <0,80 <0,80 <0,80 <0,80
FHET ng/g <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60
FOET ng/g <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60 <1,60
FDET ng/g <16,0 <16,0 <16,0 <16,0 <16,0 <16,0 <16,0
4:2 FTS ng/g <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10
6:2 FTS ng/g <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10
8:2 FTS ng/g <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10
10:2 FTS ng/g <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10
6:2 PAP ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
8:2 PAP ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
6:2 diPAP ng/g <0,50 1.1 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
6:2 8:2 diPAP ng/g <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
8:2 diPAP ng/g <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
PFBPA ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
PFHxPA ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
PFOPA ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
PFDPA ng/g <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
UV-234 ng/g <0,25 1.8 <0,25 <0,25 <0,25 <0,25 <0,25
UV-326 ng/g 149.1 571.9 68.6 69.0 31 .1 26664.6 270.0
UV-327 ng/g <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
UV-328 ng/g <0,50 <0,50 2.0 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50 <0,50
UV-329 ng/g <0,25 <0,25 6.9 <0,25 <0,25 <0,25 <0,25
UV-P ng/g <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0 <5,0
BPA ng/g <1,25 36.2 176.8 <1,25 <1,25 503.6 5 7. 8
BPB ng/g <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25
BPF ng/g <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25
BPS ng/g <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 <1,25 7. 3 <1,25
PHE (phenantrene) ng/g 122.2 6478.8 3979.4 5.0 17.8 12254.0 315.9
34
Location Sarakkuwa Panadura Kalutara Bopitiya
Sample type Pellets Burnt lump Pellets Pellets Burnt lump Pellets
AN (anthracene) ng/g 7.0 1052.1 450.6 0.4 1.1 514.7 13.2
FLT (fluoranthene ) ng/g 152.3 5293.4 2027.3 6.4 7. 6 3548.1 89.2
PY (pyrene) ng/g 166.6 6595.9 3098.5 1.1 5.7 5155.6 106.2
B[a]A (benzo[a]anthracene) ng/g 72. 3 4561.8 2063.9 <0,10 2.8 3408.0 53.5
CHR (chrysene) ng/g 42.9 3893.3 1475.3 0.1 1.3 4703 .7 44.3
B[b]FA (benzo(b)fluorantene) ng/g 26.4 2969.8 830.3 1.5 0.3 4932.0 25.9
B[k]FA (benzo(k)fluorantene) ng/g 18.7 1907.6 450.4 1.0 <0,05 2775.1 20.6
B[a]P (benzo(a)pyren) ng/g 5 7. 0 3643.8 1534.8 0.9 0.1 6049.2 50.1
DB[ah]A (dibenz(ah)antracene) ng/g 1.8 263.0 91.8 2.8 1.1 345.5 2.7
B[ghi]P (benzo(ghi)perylene) ng/g 36.9 2731.2 1288.1 1.1 0.6 4462.5 46.7
IP (Indeno [1, 2, 3-c, d] pyrene) ng/g 40.2 2382.6 2800.8 0. 3 0.4 3438.5 54.0
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 35
APPENDIX 3. DATA FROM SURVEYS
TABLE 1 EMPLOYMENT TYPES AMONGST RESPONDENTS
Employment type Colombo Kalutara Gampaha
Fishing 13 21 40
Producing beach seines or other
types of seines
7 0 0
Productions related to fishing
boats
7 4 0
Mobile vending at beach 3 1 10
Government job 1 1 2
Job in a hotel 3 0
Job in informal sector 1 2 6
Tour guide 0 1
diving to catch ornamental fish 0 1
Making dry fish 0 1 2
Selling fish 0 2
CSO Activist 2
TABLE 2 CHANGES IN RANGE OF INCOME
Colombo- Before
Accident (May
2021)
Colombo- After
the Accident
(September
2021)
Kalutara- Before
Accident (May
2021)
Kalutara- After
the Accident
(September
2021)
Gampaha- Be-
fore Accident
(May 2021)
Gampaha- After
the Accident
(September
2021)
15,000 - 25,000 13 18 8 28 18 28
26,000 - 45,000 1 16 1 26 14
46,000 - 65,000 0 1 3 11 14
66,000 - 85,000 4 1 1 3 3
86,000 - 120,000 0 1
121,000 - 150,000 1
151,000 - 200,000 0 1
201,000 and above 1
36
TABLE 3 IMPACTS TO LIVELIHOOD
Colombo Kalutara Gampaha
Complete loss of income 15 1 9
Loss of income for a shorter
period
725 35
Loss of daily income for sometime 10 0 2
Undergo the livelihood under
some restrictions
12 2 19
Impacted by destruction of equip-
ments
10 0 1
Impacted by destruction of the
place
12 1 15
Difficulty to sell products 12 15 33
Reduction in consumers/ tourist 12 13 28
No impact 1 2 1
TABLE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS
Colombo Kalutara Gampaha
A change in fish population 18 29 39
Change in colour of the sea 15 7 22
Observation of oil layer on the sea 14 2 23
Carcasses of turtles, fish, crabs
and mollusk shells
13 17 32
Plastic pellets and pieces of
plastic
8 10 47
Odor 6 7
A change of colour in dead fish 4 17 3
Burnt pieces/ debris of the ship 3 1 24
Ash in the surrounding and on the
beach
220
Damaged corals in deep or shallow
sea
2
A change of colour in fish nets
used after the accident
1 3 5
Algae washed ashore 1 1
X-Press Pearl: a ‘new kind of oil spill’ (February 2022) 37
