4.6 Article

A perspective on the state of Deepwater Horizon oil spill related tarball contamination and its impacts on Alabama beaches

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 36, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.coche.2022.100799

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. City of Orange Beach, Alabama, USA [GR27012]
  2. National Science Foundation, USA [2019561]
  3. OIA-Office of Integrative Activities
  4. Office Of The Director [2019561] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review examines recent literature on the issue of tarball contamination from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its impact on Gulf of Mexico beaches, with a particular focus on Alabama beaches. Despite remediation efforts, tarball residues continue to contaminate beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. This anthropogenic experiment has provided valuable lessons for scientists and raised challenging questions.
The Deepwater Horizon (DWH) accident spilled over 785 million liters of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). A substantial fraction of the spilled oil impacted the northern GOM shoreline, including Alabama beaches. The beached oil was in the form of brownish-orange, water-in-oil emulsion, commonly known as mousse. Although significant remediation efforts were undertaken to clean the contaminated beaches, oil residues in the form of tarballs continue to contaminate various GOM beaches. This study reviews recent literature related to the DWH tarball contamination problem and its impacts on GOM beaches, primarily focusing on the beaches located in Alabama. Though the DWH oil spill is an unfortunate disaster, for researchers it constitutes a large-scale experiment conducted on a natural system. This anthropogenic experiment has taught scientists numerous useful lessons and has also posed several challenging questions, some of which are discussed in this review.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available