Progress in Ship Pollution Prevention and Control Technologies: Regulatory Drivers, Technical Pathways and Intelligent Governance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/pn1z7x42Keywords:
Ship pollution; pollution prevention; MARPOL; exhaust emissions; ballast water treatment; shore power; alternative fuels; intelligent governance.Abstract
Shipping underpins global trade, yet ship operations remain an important source of environmental pressure through oil pollution, exhaust emissions, ballast-water-mediated biological invasions, sewage, garbage discharge, antifouling-system releases, and biofouling-related ecological risks. Under the progressively strengthened framework of MARPOL, the Ballast Water Management Convention, the Anti-Fouling Systems Convention, and the IMO energy-efficiency and carbon-intensity requirements, ship pollution control is moving from isolated end-of-pipe treatment toward an integrated regime that combines source reduction, process control, terminal treatment, and digital compliance governance. This review examines the major categories of ship-generated pollution and the corresponding control demands, with emphasis on oil-pollution prevention, exhaust aftertreatment, alternative and low-carbon fuels, shore power, ballast water treatment, sewage and garbage management, antifouling coatings, and biofouling control. It further evaluates the emerging role of digital monitoring, data-driven risk assessment, and port-ship-shore coordination in improving regulatory compliance and environmental performance. The literature indicates that low-sulfur fuels, exhaust gas cleaning systems, selective catalytic reduction, ballast water management systems, and shore-side electricity have reached different degrees of technical maturity. However, their environmental benefits remain conditional on fuel life cycles, port infrastructure, equipment cost, operational maintenance, washwater management, data reliability, and enforcement capacity. Future research should therefore move beyond single-pollutant control toward life-cycle assessment, multi-pollutant co-optimization, verifiable digital monitoring, and integrated governance across vessels, ports, energy suppliers, and regulatory authorities.
Downloads
References
[1] International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx
[2] International Maritime Organization. (2019). IMO 2020: cleaner shipping for cleaner air. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/34-IMO-2020-sulphur-limit-.aspx
[3] International Maritime Organization. (2023). 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships. https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pages/2023-imo-strategy-on-reduction-of-ghg-emissions-from-ships.aspx
[4] International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). EEXI and CII: ship carbon intensity and rating system. https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/eexi-cii-faq.aspx
[5] International Maritime Organization. (2020). Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2020. https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Fourth-IMO-GHG-Study-2020-Full-report-and-annexes_compressed.pdf
[6] International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM). https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-control-and-management-of-ships'-ballast-water-and-sediments-(bwm).aspx
[7] International Maritime Organization. (n.d.). International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships. https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-on-the-control-of-harmful-anti-fouling-systems-on-ships-(afs).aspx
[8] International Maritime Organization. (2023). 2023 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (Resolution MEPC.378(80)).
[9] Eyring, V., Köhler, H. W., van Aardenne, J., & Lauer, A. (2005). Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110(D17), D17305. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005619
[10] Corbett, J. J., Winebrake, J. J., Green, E. H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V., & Lauer, A. (2007). Mortality from ship emissions: A global assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(24), 8512–8518. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071686z
[11] Jalkanen, J. P., Brink, A., Kalli, J., Pettersson, H., Kukkonen, J., & Stipa, T. (2009). A modelling system for the exhaust emissions of marine traffic and its application in the Baltic Sea area. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9, 9209–9223. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-9209-2009
[12] Olmer, N., Comer, B., Roy, B., Mao, X., & Rutherford, D. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping, 2013–2015. International Council on Clean Transportation.
[13] Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping: A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022
[14] Balcombe, P., Brierley, J., Lewis, C., Skatvedt, L., Speirs, J., Hawkes, A., & Staffell, I. (2019). How to decarbonise international shipping: Options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy Conversion and Management, 182, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.080
[15] Ni, P., Wang, X., & Li, H. (2020). A review on regulations, current status, effects and reduction strategies of emissions for marine diesel engines. Fuel, 279, 118477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118477
[16] Lion, S., Vlaskos, I., & Taccani, R. (2020). A review of emissions reduction technologies for low and medium speed marine diesel engines and their potential for waste heat recovery. Energy Conversion and Management, 207, 112553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112553
[17] Azzara, A., Rutherford, D., & Wang, H. (2014). Feasibility of IMO Annex VI Tier III implementation using selective catalytic reduction. International Council on Clean Transportation.
[18] Comer, B., Georgeff, E., & Osipova, L. (2020). Air emissions and water pollution discharges from ships with scrubbers. International Council on Clean Transportation.
[19] Endres, S., Maes, F., Hopkins, F., Houghton, K., Mårtensson, E. M., Oeffner, J., Quack, B., Singh, P., & Turner, D. (2018). A new perspective at the ship-air-sea-interface: The environmental impacts of exhaust gas scrubber discharge. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139
[20] Lee, H., Shin, J., Woo, J., & Park, S. (2024). Comparative life cycle assessments and economic analysis of alternative marine fuels. Sustainability, 16(5), 2114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052114
[21] Wang, Y., Chen, L., Li, X., & Zhang, H. (2025). A review of life-cycle assessment studies on marine alternative fuels. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(2), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13020196
[22] DNV GL. (2018). Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies. DNV GL Maritime.
[23] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Shore power technology assessment at U.S. ports: 2022 update. EPA.
[24] Le, S. T., Lee, C. K. M., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Research on drivers and barriers to the implementation of cold ironing technology in ports. Environmental Health Insights, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241265090
[25] Tsolaki, E., & Diamadopoulos, E. (2010). Technologies for ballast water treatment: A review. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 85(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2276
[26] Jing, L., Chen, B., Zhang, B., & Li, P. (2012). A review of ballast water management practices and challenges in harsh and arctic environments. Environmental Reviews, 20(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1139/a2012-002
[27] Nwigwe, T., Kwan, Y., & Rahman, M. (2023). Review of ballast water treatment system technologies and their application. Journal of Maritime Research, 20(1), 87–98.
[28] Yebra, D. M., Kiil, S., & Dam-Johansen, K. (2004). Antifouling technology: Past, present and future steps towards efficient and environmentally friendly antifouling coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings, 50(2), 75–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2003.06.001
[29] Dafforn, K. A., Lewis, J. A., & Johnston, E. L. (2011). Antifouling strategies: History and regulation, ecological impacts and mitigation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(3), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.01.012
[30] Schultz, M. P. (2007). Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling, 23(5–6), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010701461974
[31] Schultz, M. P., Bendick, J. A., Holm, E. R., & Hertel, W. M. (2011). Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling, 27(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2010.542809
[32] Sevgili, C. (2024). Evaluation of pollution prevention related deficiencies of ships using association rule mining. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 208, 116938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116938
[33] Sevgili, C. (2024). Data-driven prediction model for pollution prevention deficiencies on ships. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 78, 103790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103790
[34] Yan, R., & Wang, S. (2022). Ship detention prediction using anomaly detection in port state control: Model and explanation. Electronic Research Archive, 30(10), 3679–3691. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022188
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Frontiers in Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
