Advertisement

Modernizing Protocols for Aquatic Toxicity Testing of Oil and Dispersant

  • Carys L. MitchelmoreEmail author
  • Robert J. Griffitt
  • Gina M. Coelho
  • Dana L. Wetzel
Chapter

Abstract

The goals of this chapter are to discuss, compare and contrast these new or altered protocols with the initial Chemical Response to Oil Spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum (CROSERF) methods. Although we do not advocate for any specific approach, we do provide a summary of updated guidelines and present recommendations for improvements to the standard protocols for future aquatic toxicity testing with oil and/or chemical dispersants.

Keywords

CROSERF CEWAF WAF Exposure Chemical analyses Toxicity testing 

References

  1. Adams J, Charbonneau K, Tuori D, Brown RS, Hodson PV (2017) Review of methods for measuring the toxicity to aquatic organisms of the water accommodated fraction (WAF) and chemically-enhanced water accommodated fraction (CEWAF) of petroleum. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2017/064. x + 108 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Aurand DV, Coelho GM (1996) Proceedings of the fourth meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. April 24–25, 1996 Santa Cruz, California, USA. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Purcellville, VA, Report 96–01, 50 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Aurand D, Coelho G (2005) Cooperative aquatic toxicity testing of dispersed oil and the Chemical Response to Oil Spills: Ecological Effects Research Forum (CROSERF). Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc. Lusby, MD. Technical Report 07–03, 105 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Aurand D, Kucklick JH (Editors) (1995) Proceedings of the third meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, DC. Marine Spill Response Corporation Technical Report Series 95-018, 69 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Aurand DV, Jamail R, Sowby M, Lessard RR, Steen A, Henderson G, Pearson L (2001) Goals, objectives, and the sponsors’ perspective on the accomplishments of the chemical response to Oil Spills: ecological effects research forum (CROSERF). Proceedings, 2001 international oil spill conference. Global strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. API Publication No. 4686B (same number used for the 1999 Proceedings). American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 1257–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barron MG, Ka’aihue L (2003) Critical evaluation of CROSERF test methods for oil dispersant toxicity testing under subarctic conditions. Mar Pollut Bull 46:1191–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bejarano AC (2018) Critical review and analysis of aquatic toxicity data on oil spill dispersants. Environ Toxicol Chem 37(12):2989–3001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bejarano AC, Clark JR, Coelho GM (2014) Issues and challenges with oil toxicity data and implications for their use in decision making: a quantitative review. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(4):732–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bejarano AC, Farr JK, Jenne P, Chu V, Hielscher A (2015) The chemical aquatic fate and effects database (CAFÉ), a tool that supports assessments of chemical spills in aquatic environments. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(6):1576–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carney MW, Forth HP, Krasnec MO, Takeshita R, Holmes JV, Morris JM (2016) Quality assurance project plan: Deepwater Horizon laboratory toxicity testing. DWH NRDA toxicity technical working group. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Abt Associates, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark JR, Bragin GE, Febbo EJ, Letinski DJ (2001) Toxicity of physically and chemically dispersed oils under continuous and environmentally realistic exposure conditions: applicability to dispersant use decisions in spill response planning. Proceedings, 2001 international oil spill conference. Global strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4686B (same number used for the 1999 Proceedings). American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 1249–1255Google Scholar
  12. Coelho GM, Aurand DV (1996) Proceeding of the fifth meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. September 18–19, 1996. Corpus Christi, Texas, USA. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Purcellville, VA, Report 96–03, 60 pGoogle Scholar
  13. Coelho GM, Aurand DV (1997) Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. April 3–4, 1997. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Purcellville, VA. Report 97–01, 69 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Coelho GM, Aurand DV (1998a) Proceedings of the seventh meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. November 13–14, 1997. Santa Cruz, California, USA. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Purcellville, VA, Report 97–02, 53 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Coelho GM, Aurand DV (1998b) Proceedings of the eighth meeting of the chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Purcellville, VA. Technical Report 98–03, 30 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Coelho G, Clark J, Aurand D (2013) Toxicity testing of dispersed oil requires adherence to standardized protocols to assess potential real world effects. Environ Pollut 177:185–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Toro DM, McGrath JA, Hansen DJ (2000) Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. J Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1951–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DIVER (2017) Web application: data integration visualization exploration and reporting application, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved: [July 23, 2018], from https://www.diver.orr.noaa.gov
  19. Forth HP, Mitchelmore CL, Morris JM, Lay CR, Lipton J (2017a) Characterization of dissolved and particulate phases of water accommodated fractions used to conduct aquatic toxicity testing in support of the Deepwater Horizon natural resource damage assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 36(6):1460–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forth HP, Mitchelmore CL, Morris JM, Lipton J (2017b) Characterization of oil and water accommodated fractions used to conduct aquatic toxicity testing in support of the Deepwater Horizon natural resource damage assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 36(6):1450–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. French-McKay DP (2002) Development and application of an oil toxicity and exposure model, (OilToxEx). J Environ Toxicol Chem 21:2080–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuller C, Bonner JS (2001) Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant, and dispersed oil to Texas marine Species. Proceedings, 2001 international oil spill conference. Global strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. American Petroleum Institute Publication No.4686B (same number used for the 1999 Proceedings). American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 1243–1248Google Scholar
  23. Incardona JP, Swarts TL, Edmunds RC, Linbo TL, Aquilina-Beck A, Sloan CA, Scholz NL (2013) Exxon Valdez to Deepwater Horizon: comparable toxicity of both crude oils to fish early life stages. Aquat Toxicol:142–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krasnec MO, Forth HP, Carney MW, Takeshita R,McFadden AK, Lipton I, Wallace B, Dean K, Lay CR, Cacela D, Holmes VJ, Lipton J, Morris JM (2016) General laboratory procedures and practices: Deepwater Horizon laboratory toxicity testing. DWH NRDA Toxicity Technical Working Group. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Abt Associates, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  25. MC 252 (Deepwater Horizon) Natural Resource Damage Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Analytical Assurance Plan. Version 3.0; 2011Google Scholar
  26. National Contingency Plan Subpart J (2018) Retrieved 2018, September 19 from: https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/national-contingency-plan-subpart-j#schedule
  27. National Research Council (2005) Oil Spill dispersants: efficacy and effects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/11283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Redman AD, Parkerton TF (2015) Guidance for improving comparability and relevance of oil toxicity tests. Mar Pollut Bull 98(1–2):156–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redman A, Parkerton TF, McGrath JA, Di Toro DM (2012) PETROTOX: an aquatic toxicity model for petroleum substances. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:2498–2506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhoton SL, Perkins RA, Braddock JF, Behr-Andres C (2001) A cold-weather species’ response to chemically dispersed fresh and weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil. Proceedings, 2001 international oil spill conference. Global strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. API Publication No. 4686B (same number used for the 1999 Proceedings). American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 1231–1236Google Scholar
  31. Sandoval K, Ding Y, Gardinali P (2017) Characterization and environmental relevance of oil water preparations of fresh and weathered MC-252 Macondo oils used in toxicology testing. Sci Total Environ 576:118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer M, Aurand DV, Bragin G, Clark J, Coelho G, Sowby M, Tjeerdema R (2000) Standardization of the preparation and quantitation of water-accommodated fractions of petroleum for toxicity testing. Mar Pollut Bull 40(11):1007–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singer MM, Aurand DV, Coelho GM, Bragin GE, Clark JR, Jacobson S, Sowby M, Tjeerdema R (2001a) Making, measuring, and using water-accommodated fractions of petroleum for toxicity testing. Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference pp 1269–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Singer MM, Jacobson S, Tjeerdema RS, Sowby ML (2001b) Acute effects of fresh versus weathered oil to marine organisms: California findings. In: Proceedings of the 2001 international oil spill conference. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., pp 1263–1268Google Scholar
  35. Wetzel DL, Van Vleet ES (2001) Cooperative Studies on the toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil to marine organisms: a 3-year Florida study. Proceedings, 2001 international Oil Spill conference. Global strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and restoration. API Publication No. 4686B (same number used for the 1999 Proceedings). American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. pp 1237–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carys L. Mitchelmore
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert J. Griffitt
    • 2
  • Gina M. Coelho
    • 3
  • Dana L. Wetzel
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological LaboratorySolomonsUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern Mississippi, Division of Coastal Sciences, School of Ocean Science and TechnologyOcean SpringsUSA
  3. 3.Sponson Group Inc.MansfieldUSA
  4. 4.Mote Marine LaboratorySarasotaUSA

Personalised recommendations