Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828652›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2026

Compliance and non-compliance patterns among listed and non-listed ship recycling facilities: a comparative assessment of 22 facilities evaluated for the EU List.

Newton Narciso Pereira, Camila Aparecida Maciel da Silveira, Kauã Costa Dos Santos Paula, Camila Aguiar Diniz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Newton Narciso PereiraDepartment of Production Engineering, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), School of Industrial Engineering and Metallurgy at Volta Redonda,, Av. Dos Trabalhadores, Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3432-7063
Camila Aparecida Maciel da SilveiraDepartment of Production Engineering, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Engineering and Science, Av. Dr. Ariberto Pereira da Cunha, Guaratinguetá, São Paulo, Brazil. camila.a.silveira@unesp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7268-7399
Kauã Costa Dos Santos PaulaDepartment of Production Engineering, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), School of Industrial Engineering and Metallurgy at Volta Redonda,, Av. Dos Trabalhadores, Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0418-4700
Camila Aguiar DinizDepartment of Production Engineering, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), School of Industrial Engineering and Metallurgy at Volta Redonda,, Av. Dos Trabalhadores, Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8538-7273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ship recycling plays a central role in the circular economy of the maritime industry, yet significant disparities persist in safety, environmental performance, and regulatory compliance across global Ship Recycling Facilities (SRFs). This study analyzes 22 official inspection reports conducted by DNV for the European Commission under the EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU SRR 1257/2013), comparing listed and non-listed facilities. Using a structured qualitative framework, the findings suggest that differences between listed and non-listed facilities are reflected not only in overall compliance levels but also in the nature and distribution of non-conformities across regulatory dimensions. While most facilities showed relatively high levels of conformity in infrastructure-related requirements, more pronounced differences between the groups were observed in environmental monitoring, institutional governance, traceability systems, and intertidal zone control. Non-listed SRFs showed recurring deficiencies in environmental monitoring, documentation, emergency preparedness, and hazardous waste management, whereas listed facilities generally showed stronger governance and risk-management capabilities despite minor shortcomings. A sensitivity analysis excluding facilities employing dismantling methods prohibited under the EU SRR identified two non-listed facilities with performance profiles comparable to several listed SRFs, indicating that structural eligibility alone does not account for all observed differences between the groups. The results further suggest that environmental verification, traceability, and institutional governance are among the dimensions in which recurrent differences between the two groups were observed. These findings provide new insights into patterns associated with different listing outcomes and highlight areas that may support the modernization and regulatory alignment of ship recycling facilities.

Indexed as

RecyclingShipsEnvironmental MonitoringEuropean UnionWaste ManagementEnvironmental complianceEU ship recycling listGovernance systemsHazardous materials managementRegulatory monitoringShip recycling

Identifiers

PMID42828652
PMCPMC13680528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.