Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute issued a press release on January 26, 2011, documenting their findings to date concerning the residue of the dispersant Corexit used in the Gulf Oil Spill. The research was reviewed and published by the American Chemical Society in the journal Environmental Science & Technology on the same day.
Elizabeth B. Kujawinski ,chemist, scientists from UC Santa Barbara, Melissa C. Kido, David Valentine of UC Santa Barbara, Soule and Krista Longnecker of WHOI, Angela K. Boysen a summer student at WHOI, and Molly C. Redmond of UC Santa Barbara are named as authors of the research.
One component of Corexit - DOSS (dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate) - was found to persist in the waters treated with Corexit.
The concentrations of DOSS detected were unspecified however "Concentrations considered "toxic" are at least 1,000 times greater than those observed by Kujawinski and her colleagues, she said"
The method used is asserted to be 1000 times more sensitive than the EPA’s method.
Six hundred forty thousand pounds, of DOSS was injected into the deep ocean from April to July of 2010.
The DOSS remained in the deep ocean and was not biodegraded.
"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 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."
The conclusion is they do not know what if any future effect on sea life or humans could be.
Tar balls and oil keep coming ashore on the coasts of Alabama and other states as documented by a multitude of articles including:
First crude oil beneath sand found in Gulf
BP to hasten cleanup of buried oil in Pensacola
What seafood is safe to eat: No one really knows
A January 26, 2011, Birmingham News article chronicles the efforts of Alabama Gulf Coasts cities to force BP to fund an ad campaign to lure tourists back to their businesses in the summer of 2011. The expected input from BP is $5 million.
"George Crozier, executive director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, says the ecology of the Gulf has rebounded from the oil spill."
"The seafood coming out of the Gulf is probably the safest it has ever been," Crozier said. "It has never been so tested because of this perception, because of the concern. There has probably never been a serious risk."
These staements have not been evaluated over time.
Woods Hole research was not funded by BP money but Alabama research was.
Is it prudent to lure people onto beaches that may or may not cause health problems. Will Attorney General Luther Strange file another lawsuit against BP for tourist's health damages when the state of Alabama refuses to take any responsibility for causing those problems if and when they occur.
The state of Alabama desperately needs tax revenue to prevent proration of schools and to support a failing state employee retirement program - the RSA.
Should we hold BP responsible for the greed of government and businesses in coastal Alabama?
According to a Material Safety Data Sheet from Cytec Industries Inc., DOSS is considered to cause eye and skin irritation.
EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE:
The acute oral (rat) and dermal (rabbit) LD50 values are 3.1 g/kg and greater than 10.0 g/kg, respectively.
The 4-hour LC50 (rat) value is estimated to be greater than 20 mg/L. This material produced no adverse
effects on reproductive function in rats administered it over 3 generations. No developmental effects were
observed in a teratology study in rats at doses which were not maternally toxic.
Direct contact with this material may cause moderate eye and skin irritation.
Refer to Section 11 for toxicology information on the WHMIS regulated components of this product.
Material is not expected to be harmful by ingestion. No specific first aid measures are required.
In case of skin contact, remove contaminated clothing without delay. Flush skin thoroughly with water. Do not reuse clothing without laundering.
In case of eye contact, immediately irrigate with plenty of water for 15 minutes. Obtain medical attention if
irritation persists or if otherwise necessary.
ENGINEERING CONTROLS AND PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)
Where this material is not used in a closed system, good enclosure and local exhaust ventilation should be
provided to control exposure. Food, beverages, and tobacco products should not be carried, stored, or
consumed where this material is in use. Before eating, drinking, or smoking, wash face and hands with soap
and water. Avoid skin contact. Protective clothing such as impervious gloves, apron, workpants, long sleeve work shirt, or disposable coveralls are recommended to prevent skin contact. For operations where eye or face contact can occur, wear eye protection such as chemical splash proof goggles or face shield. Eyewash equipment and safety shower should be provided in areas of potential exposure. For operations where inhalation exposure can occur, a NIOSH approved respirator recommended by an industrial hygienist may be necessary. A full facepiece respirator also provides eye and face protection
Sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (DSS) has an average oral (rat) LD50 of 3.1 g/kg, based on measured values of 1.9 g/kg, 3.08 g/kg, and 4.3 g/kg. The dermal dermal (rabbit) LD50 is >10 g/kg. DSS has caused moderate skin and eye irritation in animals, to varying extents, depending on the formulation of the tested material (e.g. solid vs. solution), the tested concentration, and the the exposure duration. Following 24-hour dermal application (rabbits) of 8 - 10 g/kg solid DSS, the only effect observed was mild erythema. In other other rabbit skin irritation tests, the primary irritation score for 100% DSS was ~ 4 and that for 80% DSS with propylene glycol was ~3, both resulting in a moderate irritant classification. Solid DSS applied to the eyes of rabbits produced moderate irritation. Solutions of DSS appear to cause irritation at lower concentrations than the solid material. In rabbits, a concentration of 1% was the lowest reported effective dose necessary to produce slight dermal erythema and at concentrations from 5 - 25% moderate dermal irritation occurred. Mild eye irritation in rabbits occurred following treatment with concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5% DSS. Humans appear to be less sensitive to DSS for skin irritation. In humans, a concentration of 1% was the highest no-effect level observed for skin irritation following a
24-hr patch test. In a modified Draize- Shelanski repeat-insult patch test, DSS showed little evidence of irritation and and no evidence of illiciting an allergic response in human subjects. Results from a 90-day subacute oral diet (rat) study indicate a NOEL of 0.94 g/kg/day and results from a 6-month subchronic oral diet (rat) study indicate a LOEL of of 0.87 g/kg/day. No indication of significant gross or microscopic adverse effects were reported. Chronic toxicity studies in rats (2-yr) and dogs (1-yr) also reported no significant adverse effects at the doses administered. No adverse effect on reproductive function or fetal development were observed in rats treated with DSS at 0.5 and 1.0% doses, which were not maternally toxic.
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
LC50
BLUEGILL, 96 HOUR: 37 mg/L
TROUT 96 HOUR: 28 mg/L
DAPHNIA, 48 HOUR: 36 mg/L
Comments