↓ Skip to main content

Sea-dumped chemical weapons: environmental risk, occupational hazard

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Toxicology (15563650), December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Sea-dumped chemical weapons: environmental risk, occupational hazard
Published in
Clinical Toxicology (15563650), December 2015
DOI 10.3109/15563650.2015.1121272
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. I. Greenberg, K. J. Sexton, D. Vearrier

Abstract

Chemical weapons dumped into the ocean for disposal in the twentieth century pose a continuing environmental and human health risk. In this review we discuss locations, quantity, and types of sea-dumped chemical weapons, related environmental concerns, and human encounters with sea-dumped chemical weapons. We utilized the Ovid ( http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com ) and PubMed ( http://www.pubmed.org ) search engines to perform MEDLINE searches for the terms 'sea-dumped chemical weapons', 'chemical warfare agents', and 'chemical munitions'. The searches returned 5863 articles. Irrelevant and non-English articles were excluded. A review of the references for these articles yielded additional relevant sources, with a total of 64 peer-reviewed articles cited in this paper.History and geography of chemical weapons dumping at sea: Hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical munitions were disposed off at sea following World War II. European, Russian, Japanese, and United States coasts are the areas most affected worldwide. Several areas in the Baltic and North Seas suffered concentrated large levels of dumping, and these appear to be the world's most studied chemical warfare agent marine dumping areas. Chemical warfare agents: Sulfur mustard, Lewisite, and the nerve agents appear to be the chemical warfare agents most frequently disposed off at sea. Multiple other type of agents including organoarsenicals, blood agents, choking agents, and lacrimators were dumped at sea, although in lesser volumes. Environmental concerns: Numerous geohydrologic variables contribute to the rate of release of chemical agents from their original casings, leading to difficult and inexact modeling of risk of release into seawater. Sulfur mustard and the organoarsenicals are the most environmentally persistent dumped chemical agents. Sulfur mustard in particular has a propensity to form a solid or semi-solid lump with a polymer coating of breakdown products, and can persist in this state on the ocean floor for decades. Rates of solubility and hydrolysis and levels of innate toxicity of a chemical agent are used to predict the risk to the marine environments. The organoarsenicals eventually breakdown into arsenic, and thus present an indefinite timeline for contamination. Generally, studies assaying sediment and water levels of parent chemical agents and breakdown products at dumpsites have found minimal amounts of relevant chemicals, although arsenic levels are typically higher in dumpsites than reference areas. Studies of marine organisms have not shown concerning amounts of chemical agents or breakdown products in tissue, but have shown evidence of chronic toxicity. There is believed to be minimal risk posed by seafood consumption. Microbiota assays of dumpsites are significantly altered in species composition compared to reference sites, which may imply unseen but significant changes to ecosystems of dumpsites. Human health concerns: The major human health risk at this time appears to arise from acute exposure to an agent by either accidental recovery of a chemical weapon on a fishing vessel, or by munitions washed ashore onto beaches. Improving technology continues to make the deep sea more accessible, thus increasing the risk of disturbing munitions lying on or buried in the seabed. Pipe laying, cable burying, drilling, scuba diving, trawling, and undersea scientific research are the activities posing the most risk. The long-term threat to the benthic habitat via increased arsenic concentrations, shifts in microbiota speciation, and chronic toxicity to vertebrates and invertebrates is not currently understood. The risk to the environment of massive release via disturbance remains a distinct possibility. Terrorist recovery and re-weaponization of chemical agents is a remote possibility.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 11 10%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Environmental Science 7 7%
Engineering 7 7%
Other 30 28%
Unknown 36 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 September 2022.
All research outputs
#9,183,463
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#1,076
of 2,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,151
of 442,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#19
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 442,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.