Toxicity Effects of Chemically-Dispersed Crude Oil on Fish

Lee, Kenneth; King, Thomas; Robinson, Brian; Li, Zhengkai; Burridge, L.E.; Lyons, M.C.; Wong, David; MacKeigan, K.; Courtenay, Simon C.; Johnson, S. S.; Boudreau, Monica; Hodson, Peter V.; Greer, Colleen D; Venosa, Albert D.

doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2011-1-163

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two common dosing approaches used in oil toxicity testing are 1) water accommodated fraction (WAF) preparation through direct water and oil contact to simulate exposure to a surface water oil spill (Singer et al ; Aurand and Coelho ; Lee et al ; Faksness et al ), and 2) dosing of aqueous test media through oil‐loaded gravel (Carls et al ; Heintz et al ; Brannon et al ; Jung et al ) to simulate more chronic exposures associated with a shoreline or inland oil spill (Carls et al ; Jung et al ; Martin et al ). Different test protocols have been reported in the literature to generate physically dispersed oil, including low‐energy WAF (Singer et al ) and high‐energy WAF (HEWAF), in which oil is dispersed via a high‐speed blender (Forth et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive dosing yields dissolved aqueous exposures of crude oil comparable to the CROSERF (Chemical Response to Oil Spill: Ecological Effects Research Forum) water accommodated fraction method

Bera

Parkerton

Redman

et al. 2018

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chemical Response to Oil Spill: Ecological Effects Research Forum's water accommodated fraction procedure was compared with 2 alternative techniques in which crude oil was passively dosed from silicone tubing or O-rings. Fresh Macondo oil (MC252) was dosed at 30 mg/L using each approach to investigate oil dissolution kinetics, which was monitored by fluorometry as estimated oil equivalents (EOEs). Subsequent experiments with each dosing method were then conducted at multiple oil loadings. Following equilibration, test media were analytically characterized for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry and dissolved oil using biomimetic solid-phase microextraction (SPME). The results showed that equilibrium was achieved within 72 h for all methods. Measured PAH concentrations were compared with oil solubility model predictions of dissolved exposures. The concentration and composition of measured and predicted dissolved PAHs varied with oil loading and were consistent between dosing methods. Two-dimensional GC compositional data for this oil were then used to calculate dissolved toxic units for predicting MC252 oil acute toxicity across the expected range of species sensitivities. Predicted toxic units were nonlinear with loading and correlated to both EOE and biomimetic SPME. Passive dosing methods provide a practical strategy to deliver and maintain dissolved oil concentrations while avoiding the complicating role that droplets can introduce in exposure characterization and test interpretation. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2810-2819. © 2018 SETAC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive dosing yields dissolved aqueous exposures of crude oil comparable to the CROSERF (Chemical Response to Oil Spill: Ecological Effects Research Forum) water accommodated fraction method

Bera

Parkerton

Redman

et al. 2018

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As previously discussed, the highly dynamic nature of the open ocean influences the behavior of physically and chemically dispersed oil such that exposure concentrations in the water column are short lived and rapidly diluted via advection and water column mixing. These dynamic conditions have seldom been adequately replicated in the laboratory, with some notable exceptions (i.e., short acute exposures) [32,34,35]. Consequently, standard acute toxicity tests that use continuous aqueous exposure conditions for extended periods (e.g., 96 h) are not representative of these episodic, short exposure conditions (minutes to hours) that are seen in offshore waters [25,28].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same might be expected when comparing 24 h or longer data versus toxicity data derived from short exposures (1-8 h), which are the exposure conditions most representative of an oil spill setting. However, comparisons with 8-h or shorter exposures were only possible for a handful of studies [34][35][36][37][38], reporting at least 3 exposure durations ( Figure 4). Simple log-log linear regressions (data not shown) were used to estimate effect concentrations for 3-h exposures and resulting values compared with values from 96-h and 24-h exposures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues and challenges with oil toxicity data and implications for their use in decision making: A quantitative review

Bejarano¹,

Clark²,

Coelho³

2014

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquatic toxicity considerations are part of the net environmental benefit analysis and approval decision process on the use of dispersants in the event of an offshore oil spill. Substantial information is available on the acute toxicity of physically and chemically dispersed oil to a diverse subset of aquatic species generated under controlled laboratory conditions. However, most information has been generated following standard laboratory practices, which do not realistically represent oil spill conditions in the field. The goal of the present quantitative review is to evaluate the use of standard toxicity testing data to help inform decisions regarding dispersant use, recognizing some key issues with current practices, specifically, reporting toxicity metrics (nominal vs measured), exposure duration (standard durations vs short-term exposures), and exposure concentrations (constant vs spiked). Analytical chemistry data also were used to demonstrate the role of oil loading on acute toxicity and the influence of dispersants on chemical partitioning. The analyses presented here strongly suggest that decisions should be made, at a minimum, based on measured aqueous exposure concentrations and, ideally, using data from short-term exposure durations under spiked exposure concentrations. Available data sets are used to demonstrate how species sensitivity distribution curves can provide useful insights to the decision-making process on dispersant use. Finally, recommendations are provided, including the adoption of oil spill-appropriate toxicity testing practices. Environ Toxicol Chem 2014;33:732-742. # 2014 SETAC

show abstract

“…This process may be enhanced by applying chemical dispersants, which are surfactants in carrier solvents, that reduce interfacial tension at the oil-water interface. Dispersant use is predicated on the concept of dilution of oil to reduce its concentration below toxicity threshold limits and the enhancement of natural microbial degradation, as small oil droplets offer greater surface area for access to nutrients and oil degrading microbes (Lee et al, 2011).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Dispersant Utilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of the Dispersant Use during the "Deepwater Horizon" Incident -REVIEW of the Proceedings from 2011 International Oil Spill Conference-

Cho¹,

Ha²

2012

Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Once oil has spilled, oil spill responders use a variety of countermeasures to reduce the adverse effects of spilled oil on the environment. Mechanical methods of containment and recovery are preferred as the first response when the use of other methods fail or are ineffective. In these cases, the application of oil dispersants shall be use only as a last resort. While effectiveness of dispersants in removing oil form the sea surface is proven, the use of dispersants is controlled in almost all countries due to the toxicity of their active agents and the dispersed oil on the marine environment. However, according to reports, after dispersant application, no significant toxicity to fish or shrimp was observed in the field-collected samples. Moreover, the results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone. During the Deepwater Horizon Incident, dispersants were applied to floating oil and injected into the oil plume at depth. These decisions were carefully considered by state and federal agencies, as well as BP, to prevent as much oil as possible from reaching sensitive shoreline habitats. Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for dispersant use assumed that dispersants appear to prevent long-term contamination resulting absence of oil in the substrate and will benefit marine wildlife by decreasing the risk of significant contamination to feathers or fur. Further study to use dispersants with scientific baseline is needed for our maritime environment which consistently threaten huge oil spill incidents occurrence.

show abstract

Toxicity Effects of Chemically-Dispersed Crude Oil on Fish

Cited by 9 publications

References 146 publications

Passive dosing yields dissolved aqueous exposures of crude oil comparable to the CROSERF (Chemical Response to Oil Spill: Ecological Effects Research Forum) water accommodated fraction method

Passive dosing yields dissolved aqueous exposures of crude oil comparable to the CROSERF (Chemical Response to Oil Spill: Ecological Effects Research Forum) water accommodated fraction method

Issues and challenges with oil toxicity data and implications for their use in decision making: A quantitative review

The Effectiveness of the Dispersant Use during the "Deepwater Horizon" Incident -REVIEW of the Proceedings from 2011 International Oil Spill Conference-

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About