Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

26%
Harms

30%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Oil spills can be disastrous to marine life, including subtidal benthic invertebrates (White et al. 2012). The control and remediation of oil spills can be undertaken in a multitude of ways: for instance by using booms (floating barriers that contain a spill to a delimited zone) and skimmers (devices that collect and remove oil) to remove oil pollution from the surface of the water, using dispersants that break oil into small droplets (Hartwick et al. 1982), using sorbents, or using controlled burning of the oil (Al-Majed et al. 2012). Different methods have different outcomes and side-effects, but when successful may potentially reduce the risks of toxicity and direct harm to subtidal benthic invertebrates.

Evidence for related interventions is summarised under “Threat: Pollution – Use double hulls to prevent oil spills” and “Establish pollution emergency plans”.

_{Al-Majed A.A., Adebayo A.R. & Hossain M.E. (2012) A sustainable approach to controlling oil spills. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 213–227.}

_{Hartwick E.B., Wu R.S.S. & Parker D.B. (1982) Effects of a crude oil and an oil dispersant (Corexit 9527) on populations of the littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea). Marine Environmental Research, 6, 291–306.}

_{White H.K., Hsing P.Y., Cho W., Shank T.M., Cordes E.E., Quattrini A.M., Nelson R.K., Camilli R., Demopoulos A.W., German C.R. & Brooks J.M. (2012) Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 20303–20308.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Baltic Proper (Sweden).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1983 in one area of rocky coastline in the northern Baltic Proper, Sweden (Ganning et al. 1983) found that high pressure hot water shore cleaning technique following an oil spill tended to increase crude oil content of blue mussels Mytilus edulis. Results were not statistically tested. After three days, petroleum hydrocarbon content (crude oil) appeared to have increased in mussels from 40 µg/g to 533–657 µg/g, and decreased by only approximately 20–45% (to 290–530 µg/g) after two weeks. These levels tended to be higher than in mussels from an adjacent uncleaned contaminated site (43 µg/g) and mussels from a non-contaminated site (30 µg/g). In summer 1980, crude oil was experimentally spilled on the shore and cleaned. The “cleaned” sea area directly off the shore was fenced with booms, and sorption agents used on the sea surface. Blue mussels (>30 mm in length) collected from a non-contaminated site were placed in 11 net bags (12/bag). A week before cleaning, nine bags were placed within the fenced area, one bag at an uncleaned contaminated site, and one bag at the non-contaminated site, all at 0.5 m depth. One fenced bag was retrieved before cleaning. Three days after cleaning, the bag from the uncleaned contaminated site was retrieved, as well as six bags from the cleaned area. After two weeks, all remaining bags were retrieved. The crude oil content of mussels was measured.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Ganning B., Broman D. & Lindblad C. (1983) Uptake of petroleum hydrocarbons by the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) after experimental oiling and high pressure, hot water shore cleaning. Marine Environmental Research, 10, 245-254.

Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use double hulls to prevent oil spills Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link