Integrating Dispersants in Oil Spill Response in Arctic and Other Icy

Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES

Critical Review

Integrating dispersants in oil spill response in Arctic and other icy environments Alun Lewis, and Roger C. Prince Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06463 • Publication Date (Web): 30 Apr 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on May 3, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 58

Environmental Science & Technology

121x122mm (72 x 72 DPI)

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1

Page 2 of 58

Integrating dispersants in oil spill response in Arctic and other icy environments

2

Alun Lewis1 and Roger C. Prince*2

3 1

4

Staines, Middlesex, TW18 2EG, UK [email protected]

5 2

6

Stonybrook Apiary, Pittstown, NJ 08867, USA [email protected]

7 8 9

Abstract

10

Future oil exploration and marine navigation may well extend into the Arctic Ocean, and

11

government agencies and responders need to plan for accidental oil spills. We argue that

12

dispersants should play an important role in these plans, since they have substantial logistical

13

benefits, work effectively under Arctic conditions, and stimulate the rapid biodegradation of

14

spilled oil. They also minimize the risk of surface slicks to birds and mammals, the stranding

15

of oil on fragile shorelines and minimize the need for large work crews to be exposed to

16

Arctic conditions.

17

1. Introduction

18

In 2009, the US Geological Survey estimated that the Arctic might house 30% of the world’s

19

undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13% of its undiscovered oil, mostly offshore under less

20

than 500 m of water1. The decreasing extent and duration of Arctic ice cover suggests that

21

extraction of these resources will be increasingly commercially viable2,3. Oil exploration

22

activities are most often regulated by national and state authorities that mandate response

23

plans for spills and well blow-outs. Subsequent oil production will involve shipping by

24

tankers or pipelines, and these too will require planning for the event of a spill229.

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 58


25

Response plans typically rely on skimming oil as the preferred option, but this is rarely

26

successful with large spills in remote areas – despite the massive scale of the response to the

27

Deepwater Horizon blow-out for example, much less than 10% of the oil that surfaced was

28

collected4, and even less was collected from the water following the spill from the Exxon

29

Valdez5. Ice will certainly interfere with skimming operations6. Since biodegradation and

30

combustion are the only other processes that remove a majority of the hydrocarbons from the

31

biosphere, there has been considerable interest in harnessing these natural processes in oil

32

spill response7,8,. The most effective way to stimulate oil biodegradation at sea is to use

33

dispersants to facilitate the disruption of the oil slick to tiny droplets. Here we review issues

34

to be considered when using this technology in the Arctic and in other cold-water

35

environments.

36

Arctic regions are characterised by very low air temperatures (winter minima 20 would be produced.

107

As their name implies, refined products are commercial products produced in refineries. They

108

are typically sold based on physical properties, such as ease of ignition, viscosity or lubricity,

109

rather than on chemical composition. Refining begins with distillation, and many streams are

110

subsequently treated with catalysts to generate valuable molecules32. Some of the residual

111

material is converted to Bunker fuels for ships, and such fuels power almost all large

112

commercial vessels33. Bunker fuels are far more viscous than most crude oils, and need

113

heating to be pumpable within the ship.

114

Crude oils encompass a broad range of viscosities, from close to that of water (a few

115

centipoise) to viscous oils that at ambient temperature have the viscosity of peanut butter

116

(100,000 cP). Oils with API gravities >20 typically have viscosities27 at ambient temperatures

117

of 0°C; they pose a challenge to

119

both mechanical recovery and dispersion227.

120

The fate and behaviour of oil accidentally released in the Arctic will depend on the

121

circumstances of the release and prevailing ice conditions at the time34. Oil released onto the

122

sea surface may encounter open water, partial ice cover or total ice coverage depending on

123

the season and location. Oil deposited onto near total ice coverage would accumulate on top 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 58


124

of the ice and snow. Oil released subsea will rise to the sea surface. If a high level of ice

125

coverage is present, a substantial percentage of the oil will be trapped under the ice, and

126

potentially become incorporated into the ice as it grows. As oil spreads on the surface of

127

water with up to 30% ice coverage, it will drift with the wind at approximately 3.5% of wind

128

speed and leave a trail of very thin oil, or sheen, on the sea surface35. As the ice coverage

129

exceeds 30%, the oil on the surface between the floes begins to move less independently of

130

the surrounding ice36, and at above 50% ice cover the spreading of oil is mostly constrained

131

by the ice. The intrinsic properties of crude oils begin to change as soon as they are released

132

into the environment, especially on water. As oil spreads on water it loses the lightest

133

components by evaporation and begins to incorporate water; both processes gradually

134

increase the viscosity and pour point.

135

Oil spill response in cold waters may include mechanical recovery with booms and skimmers,

136

but will likely rely on in situ burning and dispersants37. Our purpose is to review the latter in

137

the context of a potential spill in cold and/or ice-infested waters.

138

3. Dispersant effectiveness on spilled oil under Arctic conditions.

139

3.1

140

Except under the very calmest sea conditions, some spilled oil will disperse into the water

141

column as small oil droplets under the influence of waves and other turbulence38. Natural

142

dispersion is promoted by increased mixing energy (rougher seas), but resisted by the

143

rheology (viscosity and pour point) of the oil, and the oil/water interfacial tension. Natural

144

dispersion will initially remove some spilled oil from the sea surface in most sea conditions,

145

but soon stops as the oil viscosity increases due to ‘weathering’39. Ice on the sea dampens

146

wave action40-42 and will suppress the natural dispersion of oil.

147

Natural dispersion can be enhanced by the addition of oil spill dispersants43,44. Dispersants

148

are blends of surfactants in solvents and when applied to spilled oil on the sea, the surfactants

Natural dispersion and dispersant use



Page 8 of 58

149

in the dispersant orientate at the oil/water interface and lower the oil/water interfacial

150

tension45. When mixing energy is applied a high proportion of the oil volume will be

151

converted into oil droplets that are small enough to be maintained in the water column by the

152

prevailing turbulence225, even if dispersants were applied several days earlier46, or before oil

153

was trapped in ice47. The concentration of dispersed oil droplets in water will be rapidly

154

diluted to low levels in most sea conditions48-51 and the majority of the dispersed oil will be

155

biodegraded promptly (see below).

156

While dispersants can be applied with vessels, a major advantage is that they can be applied

157

by aircraft52. Initial access to a spill location at the speed of an airplane, and then rapid

158

treatment of oil slicks that are spreading over large areas, are important advantages over

159

mechanical recovery or vessel application because mechanical recovery has to proceed at the

160

speed of vessels. This is particularly important in remote locations; dispersant application is

161

far less logistically challenging than mechanical recovery, which requires more personnel and

162

equipment. Nevertheless, aircraft use for dispersant application may still be limited by

163

weather and the lack of infrastructure in some regions of the Arctic.

164

In addition, dispersants are a response option that can treat oil released from a subsea blowout

165

at the source53 if the oil cannot be recovered by mechanical means. This is important for

166

contingency planning of what is usually the worst-case oil spill scenario for offshore drilling,

167

and if implemented has the advantage of treating the oil before it distributes at the surface,

168

and immediately enhancing the biodegradation process.

169

Removing the spilled oil from the sea surface, or preventing the oil from reaching the sea

170

surface by subsea dispersant use, stops the oil from becoming emulsified54 and becoming

171

persistent on the sea surface. Emulsified oil will most likely form tarballs55 that may

172

eventually drift ashore and persist for years.


Page 9 of 58


173

Dispersant effectiveness is most often taken to mean the proportion (percentage) of oil

174

dispersed into the water column as the result of dispersant addition. Dispersant effectiveness

175

has been studied at sea, in laboratory-scale test methods, and in wave tanks, and a

176

comprehensive list of experiments under Arctic conditions is given in Table S1. As discussed

177

elsewhere44, dispersant effectiveness at sea can be sub-divided into separate components of

178

operational effectiveness (probability of dispersant achieving desired treatment rate in oil),

179

chemical effectiveness (proportion of oil dispersed following dispersant addition) and

180

hydrodynamic effectiveness (transport and dilution of dispersed oil in the water column).

181

Each of these aspects of dispersant effectiveness is influenced by several factors.

182

3.2

183

A number of large-scale experiments at sea have been conducted over many years49,56 (and

184

see Supplementary Materials). Such experiments are very costly, logistically complex, must

185

conform to regulatory requirements and are subject to severe restraint by the prevailing

186

weather and sea conditions. While it is possible to gain a lot of information about the fate and

187

behaviour of spilled oils, and this is extremely useful in calibrating smaller-scale studies, it is

188

currently impossible to accurately quantify dispersant effectiveness at sea. Oil dispersed into

189

the water column has a very heterogeneous spatial distribution and is rapidly diluted to low

190

concentrations. It is therefore not possible to construct a ‘mass balance’ from which the

191

dispersant effectiveness at sea can be derived. A variety of monitoring methods, such as the

192

SMART (Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies)57 protocol, has been

193

proposed, but none accurately quantify dispersant effectiveness at sea.

194

3.3

195

In the absence of the ability to quantitatively determine dispersant effectiveness at sea, many

196

tests have been devised to measure dispersant effectiveness in the laboratory58, including the

197

Warren Spring Laboratory (WSL) LR 448 Rotating Flask method59, Mackay-Nadeau-

Dispersant effectiveness at sea

Dispersant effectiveness in the laboratory



Page 10 of 58

198

Steelman (MNS) method60, Swirling Flask Test (SFT)61, Baffled Swirling Flask Test (BFT)62

199

and the Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP)63 dilution method. These test methods only assess

200

the chemical effectiveness aspect of dispersion, the proportion of oil dispersed by dispersant

201

addition, and are typically used or proposed to assess dispersant effectiveness for regulatory

202

purposes in various countries. An important misconception is that dispersant effectiveness

203

tests used for regulatory listing accurately predict field performance. Regulatory tests

204

normally use methods and test oils that will produce a mid-range effectiveness such as 45%64,

205

60%65 or 75%66 so that the relative performance of dispersants, under the conditions

206

employed in the test method, can be discriminated. These tests do not predict dispersant

207

effectiveness in the field, or even in large wave tanks, where effectiveness is routinely >90%,

208

even at 1°C 60. The apparent dispersant effectiveness in any method depends on several

209

factors, including the intensity of the mixing action (which varies greatly between the

210

methods), the reduction in oil/water interfacial tension achieved by dispersant addition

211

(dependant on dispersant composition and treatment rate), and the resistance to dispersion

212

caused by the flow properties (rheology, including viscosity and pour point) of the oil tested,

213

under the conditions of the test. A major disadvantage of laboratory methods is that it is not

214

possible to scale the results to predict dispersant performance at sea. In part, this is because

215

laboratory tests do not include the operational and hydrodynamic elements of dispersant

216

effectiveness at sea, especially the enormous potential dilution available at sea. There have

217

been attempts to measure the energy dissipation rates in some laboratory test methods67 to

218

provide a more fundamental basis for comparisons between different methods, but these have

219

yet to be conclusive, and comparisons between apparent effectiveness in the laboratory and at

220

sea remain elusive.

221

3.4

Dispersant effectiveness in wave tanks


Page 11 of 58


222

The use of wave tanks of various sizes addresses some of the artificialities of laboratory scale

223

testing. The waves produced in a wave tank can be well-characterized and they produce a

224

dispersion mechanism that resembles dispersion of oil at sea more closely than the mixing in

225

the various laboratory tests. Experimental parameters can be controlled in a way that is not

226

possible at sea and, being a closed system, oil that is not dispersed can be recovered to

227

provide a quantitative estimate of dispersant effectiveness. The effectiveness of ‘good’

228

dispersants in wave tank experiments is much higher than in laboratory tests, routinely

229

>90%68,69.

230

3.5

231

Arctic conditions, in the context of dispersant effectiveness, refers to low surface water

232

temperatures near 0°C, the possible presence of ice, and as a more minor effect, water

233

salinities transiently differing from temperate oceans.

234

The effect of low water temperature

235

The low water temperatures of the Arctic gave rise to concerns that dispersants would be

236

inherently less effective than in temperate climes because the lower water temperature would

237

increase oil viscosity. This concern has proved to be unjustified in most cases. In general, low

238

viscosity oils can be dispersed easily while higher viscosity oils are more difficult to disperse,

239

but there is no linear decrease of dispersant effectiveness with oil viscosity. Instead, the

240

dispersant effectiveness is approximately constant until a high viscosity value is reached at

241

which the dispersant effectiveness drops. In the late 1970s it was considered that an oil

242

viscosity of higher than 2,000 cP (equivalent to liquid honey at room temperature) would be

243

the limit for dispersant effectiveness70, but subsequent studies71-73 have shown that modern

244

dispersants can disperse some weathered and emulsified oils with a significantly higher

245

viscosity of 20,000 cP or more (equivalent to chocolate syrup at room temperature). A single

246

viscosity value is an inadequate description of the flow behaviour (rheology) as almost all

Dispersant effectiveness in Arctic conditions



Page 12 of 58

247

‘weathered’ oils, and all emulsified oils, exhibit non-Newtonian flow behaviour, and

248

weathering varies within a floating slick. Nevertheless, the concept of a generally-applicable

249

‘limiting’ oil viscosity for effective dispersion persists in dispersant effectiveness studies74,75.

250

To aid contingency planning for oil spill response, some ‘rules of thumb’ have evolved, and it

251

is considered unlikely that dispersant will be effective on ‘weathered’ oils that have a

252

viscosity of more than 10,000 cP or a pour point (the temperature at which it just flows228) of

253

5-10°C above sea temperature227. As oil viscosity increases with the time the spilled oil is on

254

the sea surface, the decrease in likely dispersant-effectiveness can be expressed as a time

255

“window of opportunity” for dispersant use76.

256

A consolidated body of work, built up over many years, shows that low water temperatures

257

do not preclude dispersant effectiveness. Early work used laboratory-scale methods with

258

water temperatures of 0°C and 20°C to assess the effectiveness of different dispersants77-80.

259

The lower water temperature caused higher oil viscosity, but did not result in significant

260

changes in the measured dispersant effectiveness; the oil viscosity was not limiting dispersant

261

effectiveness. Tests using a small wave tank in the 1980’s81 also concluded that dispersion of

262

crude oils with water temperatures of 0°C was feasible, and subsequent wave tank

263

experiments showed that Hibernia crude oil (API Gravity 35°) can be dispersed in cold water

264

(0°C and 1°C) until the oil has lost ~10% by evaporation. Further studies68,82,83 with a wider

265

range of crude oils indicate that dispersant effectiveness can be >90% with water

266

temperatures of 0°C to 2°C. Oils with viscosities of 3,000 cP or less were dispersed with a

267

very high level of effectiveness, although this decreased to ~50% for oils with viscosities of

268

10,610 and 18,690 cP. Cold-water tests conducted at OHMSETT in 201684 with four

269

dispersants showed a range of dispersant effectiveness, and some achieved high levels of

270

effectiveness.

271

The effect of ice


Page 13 of 58


272

Studies on the effect of the presence of ice on dispersant effectiveness using laboratory test

273

methods also began in the early 1980s, but results with different protocols were inconsistent.

274

The presence of ice in the MNS test85 caused a reduction in dispersant effectiveness because

275

the ice caused total damping of the air-induced waves. Similarly, tests with the oscillating

276

hoop method 86 resulted in reduction of dispersant effectiveness with up to 50% ice coverage.

277

Yet testing in a laboratory-scale wave tank with a paddle-board wave generator87 suggested

278

that the presence of ice caused higher dispersant effectiveness than when ice was absent.

279

Tests were conducted outdoors in the Canadian winter in a wave tank with broken ice of

280

different types to resolve the ambiguity88. Low energy wave activity caused extensive

281

dispersion (>90%) of crude oil treated with dispersant when broken ice was present, but not

282

in a lead created between two ice sheets. Dispersant effectiveness tests with cold water and

283

brash ice were also conducted at OHMSETT89. The oils tested were Chayvo crude oil from

284

Sakhalin (API gravity 35.5°) and Hibernia crude oil (35°) and the dispersant was Corexit

285

9527. Three-meter diameter boomed areas of oil and ice were subjected to long period, non-

286

breaking, low waves. Very low energy waves (15 cm height, 6 s period) did not cause

287

dispersion of oil in ice-free conditions, but as a mixture of blocks and small fragments of ice

288

was added to the cold water, higher ice concentrations consistently produced higher

289

dispersant effectiveness. A similarly extensive study using a meso-scale flume with varying

290

amounts of ice was conducted to determine the weathering and dispersibility of weathering

291

Statfjord crude oil (API gravity 39.4°) under simulated Arctic conditions90. Weathering of oil

292

was slower in Arctic conditions than at higher water temperatures with no ice present. It

293

seems the low water temperature led to a higher oil viscosity and slower spreading, and the

294

presence of ice further restricted the spreading of the oil so that the oil layer on the sea

295

surface was thicker than it would have been at higher temperatures. This resulted in slower

296

evaporative loss of volatile oil components, less water-in-oil emulsification, and the time



Page 14 of 58

297

“window of opportunity” for effective dispersant use was thereby increased. The limited

298

mixing energy available due to wave damping in high ice coverage becomes the limiting

299

factor for dispersant effectiveness, and additional mixing energy would need to be applied

300

after dispersant application to achieve maximal dispersion of the oil, perhaps by propeller

301

wash from icebreakers or support vessels91 if these are available.

302

Dispersant effectiveness at sea with ice

303

The findings of the laboratory and wave tank studies with regard to the ‘weathering’ of oils

304

and dispersant effectiveness in Arctic conditions have been confirmed by measurements and

305

observations at sea92,93. For example, dispersants were successful in dispersing five different

306

oils (API gravity 23.7-43.3°) in the marginal ice zone of the Barents Sea with ice coverage of

307

70-90%. Even after six days the oils were dispersible with Corexit 9500, providing agitation

308

was supplied by the water-jet thrusters of small boats; less than 10% of the oil remained on

309

the sea surface after dispersant treatment93, compared to the majority of oil remaining in the

310

untreated slicks.

311

The effect of salinity variation

312

The salinity of Arctic seawater can be lower than standard open ocean salinity (~35 ppt or

313

psu) due to extensive freshwater from the Mackenzie River delta into the Canadian Beaufort

314

Sea and the Ob and Yenisey rivers into the Kara Sea94 (which can also deliver large amounts

315

of suspended sediments). The temperature and salinity in the very top layer of a calm sea (a

316

few centimetres) also varies as ice cover forms and melts; salt is expelled from ice into the

317

water during freeze-up and low salinity water is released into the sea when the ice melts,

318

although such discrepancies are usually eliminated with any wave action. Laboratory testing

319

under simulated Baltic Sea conditions95 with low salinities concluded that different

320

dispersants varied in their effectiveness, and similar results have been found in other

321

studies96,97. Most dispersants have been formulated to be most effective at salinities above


Page 15 of 58


322

20ppt, and their performance is slightly reduced in brackish water, but oil spill dispersants

323

that are effective in low salinity and fresh water can be readily formulated98, if required.

324

4. Toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil

325

Dispersants were first used on a large scale in the response to the 1967 Torrey Canyon

326

disaster. While the products were judged successful at sea, dispersants and degreasing agents

327

were also applied directly to oiled shorelines, and flame-throwers99 were used as part of

328

shoreline clean-up. There were relatively persistent ecological effects from such treatment100,

329

and this precedent-setting event has challenged perceptions about dispersant use ever since43.

330

It led to development of new dispersant formulations101 with minimal acute toxicity45 and

331

restrictions on where dispersants are applied (i.e., not on shorelines). Further there has been a

332

revolution in understanding acute and chronic toxicity tests102-104. Modern dispersants are

333

typically formulated from chemicals already used as food additives and/or cosmetics105, and

334

they have acute toxicities106,107,218 (LC50 values for 48 - 96 hour exposures of tens to hundreds

335

of ppm) essentially equivalent to common shampoos and dish cleaners106,108 (including those

336

used to clean oiled sea-birds109). Standard aerial application of dispersants219 (47 l/ha) hitting

337

water with no oil would result in a transient concentration of dispersant in the top meter of

338

seawater of ~5ppm. When it successfully disperses oil, however, there will be a many fold

339

higher concentration of oil in the water.

340

The acute toxicity of oil and dispersed oil falls in a range of LC50 values (48-96 hour

341

exposure) of 2 to 50 ppm102104, and Arctic species are no more sensitive than their temperate

342

cousins111,112. Studies reporting that dispersed oil is more acutely toxic than an undispersed

343

slick are the result of reporting nominal concentrations, and when toxicity test results are

344

based on measured oil concentrations in the water, dispersant-treated oil is no more toxic than

345

physically dispersed oil; the components in the oil drive the toxicity and dispersants do not

346

cause a synergistic effect110. Thus, as with all toxicants, it is ‘the dose (concentration x time



Page 16 of 58

347

of exposure) that makes the poison’113, and the potential for acute effects rests on exposure to

348

more than a few ppm oil or dispersant for some time.

349

To understand the potential for acute toxic effects after application, we need to know the

350

concentration of dispersed oil in a dispersing plume, and how this changes with time. The

351

concentration immediately after dispersion could be several hundred ppm114, but dilution and

352

diffusion rapidly reduce the concentration to around 1 ppm within a few hours as the plume

353

increases in volume. It is worth noting that without this dilution, the droplets would

354

eventually aggregate, as they do in laboratory vessels, and re-form a floating slick – it is the

355

turbulence and enormous dilution available in the sea that makes dispersion a viable

356

technology114. Once dispersion has occurred, coalescence becomes less and less likely as the

357

droplets dilute and have fewer collisions. Whether the surfactants remain with the droplets

358

once they have formed, or diffuse away, has no influence on the fate of the oil. Dilution

359

continues, of course, but most field trials failed to find oil after several hours. In any case we

360

can expect that oil concentrations continue to fall as time proceeds, and it is noteworthy that

361

despite the ongoing release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from the tragic Deepwater Horizon

362

blowout, the vast majority (84%) of the >20,000 water samples taken had oil concentrations

363

below 1 ppb115, even though sampling was biased towards locations where oil was expected

364

based on winds and currents.

365

We can thus conclude that oil dispersion – whether by natural wave action or enhanced by

366

dispersants - will likely have a very local and short duration toxic influence on the indigenous

367

meiofauna and flora – small and developing fish, copepods, algae etc. – but that the volume

368

impacted is likely only the first meter or so beneath the dispersed slick, and only for a short

369

time. Measured concentrations of dispersed oil in the deepwater ‘plume’ from the Deepwater

370

Horizon wellhead were all less than 1 ppm oil, and most were much lower115, so again the

371

acute toxicity was likely low.


Page 17 of 58


372

Chronic effects of dispersant-facilitated dispersed oil are more difficult to predict, not least

373

because there have been few studies at the dilutions that occur in the sea, and in any case

374

biodegradation removes dispersed oil and dispersant quite promptly (see below). The

375

dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon response show neither androgen- nor estrogen-

376

receptor activity116, and their components have been in widespread commercial use for so

377

long that unexpected chronic effects seem unlikely. The widespread use of dioctyl

378

sulfosuccinate in commerce, for example, led Hayworth and Clement117 to conclude that the

379

trace amounts of this compound in nearshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico came from

380

terrestrial sources rather than dispersant applications. Chronic effects of the hydrocarbons

381

themselves undoubtedly include the initiation of detoxification mechanisms, such as the

382

potential induction of cytochrome P450s118,119. Since hydrocarbons have been part of the

383

biosphere for millions of years, such responses may simply indicate a healthy response to

384

environmental exposures.

385

This is not to say that oils spill have no adverse environmental impacts – of course they do,

386

and there has been a wealth of work curated by NOAA on research following the Deepwater

387

Horizon tragedy120. Responders and responsible parties will debate how extensive these

388

effects are, or will be in a different location, and these discussions in turn will inform Net

389

Environmental Benefit Assessments in the Arctic. Fodrie et al.121 point out that there is a

390

discrepancy between consistently negative impacts on individual organisms in the laboratory,

391

and the absence of measurable negative impacts among populations of estuarine fishes

392

exposed to oil. A recent paper considering the risk to Arctic cod populations in the Beaufort

393

Sea suggests that even very large spills are unlikely to have a detectable population effect122.

394

5. Oil and dispersant biodegradation under Arctic conditions

395

The biodegradation of oil has been studied for almost a century123 and by 1941 it was clear

396

that marine microorganisms were able to degrade a long list of hydrocarbons: ‘gasoline,



Page 18 of 58

397

kerosene, lubricating oils, crude oils,…’124. There has been enormous progress since then,

398

and the biodegradation pathways of most of the broad classes of hydrocarbons are reasonably

399

well understood in aerobic environments125-130. Aerobic biodegradation in seawater is

400

remarkably extensive, with the essentially complete disappearance of nearly all the

401

hydrocarbons in a few weeks at dilutions that reflect environmental concentrations of

402

dispersed oil131. The slowest to degrade are cyclic saturated hydrocarbons such as the

403

hopanes and steranes131, and the asphaltenes and resins that are the pigments of petroleum.

404

There is some evidence that the latter components are at least partially biodegradable132-135,

405

but the biodegradation of road asphalt is very slow, even with canine nutrient amendments.

406

The biodegradation of hopanes and steranes is known136,137,131, but their environmental

407

persistence is such that Ourisson138 concluded that there was of the order of “1011-12 tonnes in

408

the biosphere, which is as much or more than the total mass of organic carbon in all living

409

organisms.” Once the majority of the hydrocarbons have been degraded131,200, the residue is a

410

tar-like material rather akin to road tar – a non-oily solid that probably amounts to no more

411

than 15% of an oil with API gravity >20°. In small quantities, as the remainder from the

412

biodegradation of small oil droplets, the residue is difficult to distinguish from humic and

413

fulvic substances in sediments139. We note in passing that the polycyclic aromatic

414

hydrocarbons of most toxicological concern222 (e.g. benzo[a]pyrene, 5-methylchrysene, etc.)

415

are pyrogenic, and are not found beyond miniscule amounts in crude oils27.

416

The rate of biodegradation has been the subject of much confusion for many years, with

417

estimates of half-lives in the environment ranging from days to years140. A major

418

confounding factor in understanding biodegradation is the insolubility of most hydrocarbons

419

– for example decane is only soluble to 49 ppb, and longer alkanes are even less soluble141,

420

while the solubility maximum for phenanthrene in seawater is 710 ppb142 and of

421

perhydrophenanthrene (its fully saturated form) is 20 ppb141. Thus almost all the components


Page 19 of 58


422

of a dispersed oil are present as a separate phase, oil droplets, in seawater, and microbial

423

attack is restricted to the surface of the oil at the oil-water interface. The surface area is

424

maximized with the smallest droplets, and as expected Brakstad et al.142 have shown that oil

425

droplets of 10µm diameter are degraded subtly faster than those of 30µm under identical

426

conditions. A major goal of modern dispersant application is thus to facilitate the generation

427

of the smallest possible droplets. When oil is dispersed as dilute droplets of 1km) shoreline led to measurable oil concentrations on the shore of only 1-2ppm215.

1349


Integrating Dispersants in Oil Spill Response in Arctic and Other Icy

Recommend Documents