↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and potential ecological effects of offshore surface dispersant use during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: a retrospective analysis of monitoring data

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness and potential ecological effects of offshore surface dispersant use during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: a retrospective analysis of monitoring data
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3332-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana C. Bejarano, Edwin Levine, Alan J. Mearns

Abstract

The Special Monitoring of Applied Response Technologies (SMART) program was used during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a strategy to monitor the effectiveness of sea surface dispersant use. Although SMART was implemented during aerial and vessel dispersant applications, this analysis centers on the effort of a special dispersant missions onboard the M/V International Peace, which evaluated the effectiveness of surface dispersant applications by vessel only. Water samples (n = 120) were collected from background sites, and under naturally and chemically dispersed oil slicks, and were analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (TPAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and a chemical marker of Corexit (dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether, DPnB). Water chemistry results were analyzed relative to SMART field assessments of dispersant effectiveness ("not effective," "effective," and "very effective"), based on in situ fluorometry. Chemistry data were also used to indirectly determine if the use of dispersants increased the risk of acute effects to water column biota, by comparison to toxicity benchmarks. TPAH and TPH concentrations in background, and naturally and chemically dispersed samples were extremely variable, and differences were not statistically detected across sample types. Ratios of TPAH and TPH between chemically and naturally dispersed samples provided a quantitative measure of dispersant effectiveness over natural oil dispersion alone, and were in reasonable agreement with SMART field assessments of dispersant effectiveness. Samples from "effective" and "very effective" dispersant applications had ratios of TPAH and TPH up to 35 and 64, respectively. In two samples from an "effective" dispersant application, TPHs and TPAHs exceeded acute benchmarks (0.81 mg/L and 8 μg/L, respectively), while none exceeded DPnB's chronic value (1,000 μg/L). Although the primary goal of the SMART program is to provide near real-time effectiveness data to the response, and not to address concerns regarding acute biological effects, the analyses presented here demonstrate that SMART can generate information of value to a larger scientific audience. A series of recommendations for future SMART planning are also provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 7 9%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 19%
Engineering 6 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,381,450
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#501
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,365
of 197,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.