4.5 Review

Critical review and analysis of aquatic toxicity data on oil spill dispersants

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 37, Issue 12, Pages 2989-3001

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.4254

Keywords

Aquatic toxicity; Chemical dispersants; Species sensitivity distributions; Hazard concentrations; Risk assessment

Funding

  1. Clean Caribbean and Americas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oil spill response requires consideration of several countermeasures including chemical dispersants, but their potential toxicity to aquatic species poses a concern. Considerable in vivo aquatic toxicity data from laboratory exposures have been generated since 2010 for current-use dispersants. The objective of the present review is to provide a synthesis of these data to improve dispersant hazard assessments. Data from multiple studies were evaluated based on reliability criteria. Although procedures, standards, endpoints, and statistical approaches were usually described, nearly a quarter of sources did not provide sufficient information to judge study quality but were considered on a case-by-case basis. Data were used to develop dispersant-specific species sensitivity distributions and hazard concentrations protective of 95% of the species (HC5). Given data limitations, post-2010 toxicity data were augmented with pre-2010 data and model predictions. The HC5s calculated for 54 dispersants fell mostly within the moderate to slightly toxic range and were compared to field dispersant-only concentrations estimated from operational application rates under conservative assumptions. Based on available evidence, dispersants may not pose a significant risk under field conditions to most aquatic species, if proper application and dilution are taken into account. Recommendations on improved toxicity testing and reporting as well as research needs are also provided. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2989-3001. (c) 2018 SETAC

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available