First study of dispersants in Gulf spill suggests a prolonged deepwater fate

Jan 26, 2011
When oil and gas mixtures are ejected from a deep wellhead, liquid oil droplets of many different sizes form and rise toward the ocean surface. Because the smaller droplets become as dense as the surrounding water deep below the surface--in this case at about 1,100 meters—they are swept away laterally by prevailing ocean currents (left panel). When a dispersant is added at the depth of the wellhead, a component called a surfactant breaks up the oil into small droplets (middle panel). If the dispersant works perfectly, virtually all the liquid oil is in these “neutrally buoyant” droplets and is carried away before ever reaching the surface and the droplets become small enough to be consumed, or “biodegraded,” by bacteria. In the Deepwater Horizon spill (right panel), scientists found evidence that the dispersant mixed with the small droplets in the deep-water hydrocarbon plume but also discovered the oil/dispersant mix had not yet biodegraded several months after the spill. The study could not distinguish between oil droplets coated with surfactant (which would suggest the dispersant worked as planned) and surfactant floating freely on its own (suggesting the substance did not attach to the oil, as intended). (Illustration by Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

(PhysOrg.com) -- To combat last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill, nearly 800,000 gallons of chemical dispersant were injected directly into the oil and gas flow coming out of the wellhead nearly one mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, as scientists begin to assess how well the strategy worked at breaking up oil droplets, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) chemist Elizabeth B. Kujawinski and her colleagues report that a major component of the dispersant itself was contained within an oil-gas-laden plume in the deep ocean and had still not degraded some three months after it was applied.

While the results suggest the dispersant did mingle with the oil and gas flowing from the mile-deep wellhead, they also raise questions about what impact the deep-water residue of oil and dispersant—which some say has its own toxic effects—might have had on environment and marine life in the Gulf.

"This study gives our colleagues the first environmental data on the fate of dispersants in the spill," said Kujawinski, who led a team that also included scientists from UC Santa Barbara. "These data will form the basis of toxicity studies and modeling studies that can assess the efficacy and impact of the dispersants.

"We don't know if the dispersant broke up the oil," she added. "We found that it didn't go away, and that was somewhat surprising."

The study, which appears online Jan. 26 in the American Chemical Society (ACS) journal Environmental Science &Technology, is the first peer-reviewed research to be published on the dispersant applied to the Gulf spill and the first data in general on deep application of a dispersant, according to ACS and Kujawinski. Some previous studies had indicated that dispersants applied to surface oil spills can help prevent surface slicks from endangering marshes and coastlines.

Kujawinski and her colleagues found one of the dispersant's key components, called DOSS (dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate), was present in May and June—in parts-per-million concentrations--in the plume from the spill more than 3,000 feet deep. The plume carried its mixture of oil, natural gas and dispersant in a southwest direction, and DOSS was detected there at lower (parts-per-billion) concentrations in September.

Using a new, highly sensitive chromatographic technique that she and WHOI colleague Melissa C. Kido Soule developed, Kujawinski reports those concentrations of DOSS indicate that little or no biodegradation of the dispersant substance had occurred. The deep-water levels suggested any decrease in the compound could be attributed to normal, predictable dilution. They found further evidence that the substance did not mix with the 1.4 million gallons of dispersant applied at the ocean surface and appeared to have become trapped in deepwater plumes of oil and natural gas reported previously by other WHOI scientists and members of this research team. The team also found a striking relationship between DOSS levels and levels of methane, which further supports their assertion that DOSS became trapped in the subsurface.

Though the study was not aimed at assessing the possible toxicity of the lingering mixture—Kujawinski said she would "be hard pressed to say it was toxic"—it nevertheless warrants toxicity studies into possible effects on corals and deep-water fish such as tuna, she said. The EPA and others have already begun or are planning such research, she added.

David Valentine of UC Santa Barbara and a co-investigator in the study, said, "This work provides a first glimpse at the fate and reactivity of chemical dispersants applied in the . By knowing how the dispersant was distributed in the deep ocean, we can begin to assess the subsurface biological exposure, and ultimately what effects the dispersant might have had."

"The results indicate that an important component of the chemical dispersant injected into the oil in the deep ocean remained there, and resisted rapid biodegradation," said Valentine, whose team collected the samples for Kujawinski's laboratory analysis. "This knowledge will ultimately help us to understand the efficacy of the dispersant application, as well as the biological effects."

Kujawinski and Valentine were joined in the study by Soule and Krista Longnecker of WHOI, Angela K. Boysen a summer student at WHOI, and Molly C. Redmond of UC Santa Barbara. The work was funded by WHOI and the National Science Foundation. The instrumentation was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

A fresh oil slick from the Deepwater Horizon spill, during June 2010. Note that one drop of detergent was added to the oil slick, forming the cleared circle. (Photo by David L. Valentine, University of California Santa Barbara)

In Kujawinski's technique, the target molecule was extracted from Gulf water samples with a cartridge that isolates the DOSS molecule. She and her colleagues then observed the molecule through a mass spectrometer, ultimately calculating its concentration levels in the and gas plume. This method is 1,000 times more sensitive than that used by the EPA and could be used to monitor this molecule for longer time periods over longer distances from the wellhead, she said.

"With this method, we were able to tell how much [dispersant] was there and where it went," Kujawinski said. She and her colleagues detected DOSS up to around 200 miles from the wellhead two to three months after the deep-water injection took place, indicating the mixture was not biodegrading rapidly.

"Over 290,000 kg, or 640,000 pounds, of DOSS was injected into the deep ocean from April to July," she said. "That's a staggering amount, especially when you consider that this compound comprises only 10% of the total dispersant that was added."

Kujawinski cautioned that "we can't be alarmist" about the possible implications of the lingering dispersant. Concentrations considered "toxic" are at least 1,000 times greater than those observed by Kujawinski and her colleagues, she said. But because relatively little is known about the potential effects of this type of dispersant/hydrocarbon combination in the deep ocean, she added, "We need toxicity studies."

"The decision to use chemical dispersants at the sea floor was a classic choice between bad and worse," Valentine said. "And while we have provided needed insight into the fate and transport of the dispersant we still don't know just how serious the threat is; the deep ocean is a sensitive ecosystem unaccustomed to chemical irruptions like this, and there is a lot we don't understand about this cold, dark world."

"The good news is that the stayed in the deep ocean after it was first applied," Kujawinski says. "The bad news is that it stayed in the deep ocean and did not degrade."

Explore further: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

Provided by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

4.1 /5 (7 votes)

Related Stories

BP relaunches subsea dispersant operations

May 11, 2010

BP restarted Monday operations to stream dispersants directly into the main Gulf of Mexico oil leak despite fears the chemicals could themselves be harmful to the environment.

A less toxic, more efficient dispersant is scientist's goal

Sep 21, 2010

After the failure of the Deepwater Horizon oil well last spring, nearly 2 million gallons of dispersant were released into the Gulf of Mexico to contain the spill. While preliminary reports suggest that it successfully dispersed ...

Oil dispersants' effects still largely a mystery

Sep 09, 2010

In the wake of the BP oil spill, gaping questions remain about a key tool used during cleanup: the nearly 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants sprayed over the water or onto the gushing wellhead on the ...

Recommended for you

US plans widespread seismic testing of sea floor

Jul 26, 2014

(AP)—The U.S. government is planning to use sound blasting to conduct research on the ocean floor along most of the East Coast, using technology similar to that which led to a court battle by environmentalists in New Jersey.

Fire ecology manipulation by California native cultures

Jul 26, 2014

Before the colonial era, 100,000s of people lived on the land now called California, and many of their cultures manipulated fire to control the availability of plants they used for food, fuel, tools, and ritual. Contemporary ...

User comments : 9

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jscroft
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2011
Unintended consequences? Things might have worked out better if stupid environmentalists had just left them alone? Seriously? Gosh, that NEVER happens...
Cave_Man
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2011
From what I've read that dispersant was highly toxic and not only that but they were only used because someone made a crap ton of money from the sale of 800,000 gallons of the chemical.

Small oil spills back in the day were thought to destroy much more than scientists admitted and seeing as how the population of fish in the ocean is 10% of what they were in pre-industrial oceans I think we just effectively killed the planet....
jscroft
1 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2011
the population of fish in the ocean is 10% of what they were in pre-industrial oceans


I always thought that was BS. The volume of Earth's oceans is over 1.3 BILLION km^3. What do you think is more likely... that all the fish are gone, or that the adaptive pressure generated by a hundred fish-generations of human fishing has caused the entirely unknown quantity of fish to concentrate in the billion-plus cubic kilometers of ocean water nobody in human history has ever touched, not even once?

What test would you propose to select the better of these two hypotheses? Don't know? Neither do the folks who proposed that 10% figure, so one has to wonder just what NON-scientific agenda might have induced them so arbitrarily to decide the undecidable.
Cave_Man
5 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2011
why cant i put a physorg link without it thinking its spam LOL

and to jscroft,

yeah lets just hope that some unknown species of tasty fish that nobody has ever discovered awaits us just out of sight and forget about the fact that many large sea mammals are already endangered or extinct.

The fact IS that the species we fish are producing around 10% of what they used to, no way of denying the fact that with 6 billion humans on Earth we might not be able to rely on what nature provides us anymore.
Caliban
not rated yet Jan 27, 2011
Unintended consequences? Things might have worked out better if stupid environmentalists had just left them alone? Seriously? Gosh, that NEVER happens...


Just what is that gobbledygook supposed to mean? I get that it was supposed to be sarcastic, but, beyond that, the comment was so garbled that it made absolutely no sense.
technicalengeneering
not rated yet Jan 27, 2011
Why on earth didn't they just pump air down along with algae and let nature do the rest??
jscroft
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2011
@Cave_Man:

The fact IS that the species we fish are producing around 10% of what they used to...


Prove it.

Note that I am NOT saying that it isn't so. I am offering an alternative hypothesis (that the ocean is large, and they may have learned to go where we are not) and pointing out that I--at least--can't think of a test that has been proposed that (a) can be performed with current technology, and (b) can distinguish between those two hypotheses.

This is the very essence of an indeterminate result. If the scientific method matters at all to you, you have two options:

1. Produce evidence of a test that falsifies my hypothesis, or...

2. Change your opinion to "undecided," and withhold your judgment until somebody performs that test.

Absent that test, what you are calling a "fact" is NOT a fact, but conjecture.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jan 27, 2011
@jscroft,

I have a better theory: there are secret alien bases along the oceanic rifts, and they've corralled all our fish there, and keeping it from us. What, you don't have any scientific evidence to refute this? I guess you must declare yourself undecided, then.

Idiotic sophistry aside, despite their great volume the world's oceans are most productive only in the top few hundred feet. Beneath that, they're too dark and too cold to sustain much biomass.

Your notion is akin to that of mowing down all the forests, and then wondering if all the trees haven't gone to hide out in the deserts.
jscroft
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2011
Your notion is akin to that of mowing down all the forests, and then wondering if all the trees haven't gone to hide out in the deserts.


No, it isn't... because we can SEE all the forests. By contrast, the ocean is opaque to most observation. ALL observation consists of statistical sampling, and our sampling rate of the oceans is a tiny fraction of a percentage point.

That leaves a great deal of room for error. Secret alien bases require a whole chain of outlandish assumptions. What I am suggesting merely requires that animals are capable of adapting their behavior so as not to be killed.

I note that even the top few hundred feet of the oceans are largely unexplored. It is an AREA thing, as well as depth. Don't take MY word for it... that's what arithmetic and the Internet are for. Anyway, I can easily conceive of a school of fish spreading out and adapting to shorter commons at an increased depth in order to avoid the nets above.