Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Burnoff – Adverse Health Effects

Athough the current burning of the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico  provides a faster solution for eliminating surface oil, it does provide it’s health challenges as well. 

Resource: NOAA 

Download PDF:  Health and Safety Aspects of “In-situ” Burning of Oil

Burning Efficiency
“In-situ burning has been studied under controlled conditions in laboratories and in field
tests, and recently under realistic conditions in an experiment off the coast of
Newfoundland, Canada. This experience indicated that in-situ burning can be an effective
oil-removing technique, removing 50 to 99 percent of the oil collected in the boom. In
addition, a field “real” burn conducted in the first days of the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince
William Sound, Alaska, resulted in the burning of 15,000 to 30,000 gallons of Prudhoe
Bay crude oil at an estimated efficiency of 98 percent or better (Allen 1990).”

Toxic Components of the Smoke Plume
The smoke emitted from oil combustion contains gases and particulates that may have
toxic effects on our bodies, much like exhaust emissions from motor vehicles or smoke
from wood stoves. The health risk will depend on the actual exposure to these agents.

Most of the oil in in-situ burning will be converted to carbon dioxide and water.
Particulates, mostly soot, comprise ten to fifteen percent of the smoke plume. Small
amounts of toxic gases are emitted as well. These include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and carbon monoxide. In addition, small amounts of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) are emitted from the fire, mostly as residues attached to the
particulates. These combustion by-products are discussed below, and their NAAQS and
occupational exposure limits are shown in Table 1.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a gas formed when sulfur in the oil or hydrogen sulfide coming
out of a well oxidize during the combustion process. This gas is toxic and irritates the
eyes and respiratory tract by forming sulfuric acid on these moist surfaces (Amdur 1986).
The concentration of SO2 in the smoke plume depends on the sulfur content of the oil.
Average SO2 levels measured in experimental burns have been below 2 ppm in the plume
100-200 meters downwind of the burn (Fingas et al. 1993). Several miles downwind,
sulfur dioxide from in-situ burning is expected to be much below the level of concern for
the general population.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is another gaseous by-product of oil combustion. Like SO2, it is
reactive, toxic, and a strong irritant to the eyes and respiratory tract. NO2 is less soluble
than SO2 and therefore may reach the deep portions of the lungs (the critical gas
exchange area of the lungs) so that even low concentrations may cause pulmonary edema,
which may be delayed (Amdur 1986).

Sampling results to date indicate that the concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the plume
several miles downwind of the burn does not exceed several parts per billion (Ferek
1994). Therefore, it is not expected to pose a threat to the general public several miles
downwind of the burn.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of hydrocarbons characterized
by multiple benzene rings attached together. These compounds have very low vapor
pressures and are not very flammable (compared to other compounds found in crude
oils.) PAHs are found in the unburned oil as well as the smoke plume. Some PAHs are
known or suspected carcinogens. Target organs may include the skin (from chronic skin
contact with oils) or the lungs from inhalation of aerosol. Based on data from NOBE and
previous burns, most PAHs are burned in the fire, and their concentration in the oil
residue is higher than in the smoke plume (Fingas et al. 1994).

PAHs were found in barely detectable concentrations in the smoke from the Kuwaiti oil
fires (Campagna and Humphrey 1992). Low levels of PAHs were also detected in
experimental oil burns, (Mass Selective Detector, analytical sensitivity 0.01 mg/m3 air)
with levels in the plume less than 0.01 ppm (Fingas et al. 1994). Considering the low
level of PAHs detected so far, it is felt that they present only a small exposure hazard.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a common by-product of incomplete combustion. The
toxicity of CO is acute and stems from its high affinity to the hemoglobin molecule in red
blood cells. CO will chemically displace oxygen from the blood and cause oxygen
deprivation in the cells of the body. In experimental burns the average level of CO in the
smoke plume over the duration of the burns (15 to 30 minutes) was found to be 1 to 5
ppm 150 meters downwind of the burns (Fingas et al. 1993).
Particulates in the smoke plume are considered by most health professionals to be the
main combustion product to investigate and monitor. Therefore, particulates will be
discussed in more detail.

Particulates are small pieces of solid materials (dusts, soot, fumes) or liquid material
(mists, fogs, sprays) that remain suspended in the air long enough to be inhaled. During
in-situ burning elemental carbon (soot) and hydrocarbons are emitted. Since these
particulates absorb light to a high degree, the smoke plume is usually black.
Particulate concentration is measured in several ways. A relatively accurate method
involves sampling with an air pump that draws air through a filter. Depending on pore
size, the filter may collect more than 99.9 percent of the particulates in the air. Real-time
instruments that can measure particulate concentration at the time of measurement are
also available; some are quite sensitive and accurate. They must be calibrated to the
particulates of concern, and may be affected by other aerosols such as water vapor.

REFERENCES
Allen, A.A. 1990. Contained controlled burning of spilled oil during the Exxon Valdez
oil spill. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical
Seminar, June 6-8, 1990, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 305-313.

Amdur, M.O. 1986. Air pollutants. In C.D. Klaassen, M.O. Amdur, and J. Doull, eds.,
Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., pp. 801-824.

Booher, L.E., Exxon Corporation USA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Personal
communication, October 1992.

Bowes, S., Exxon Biomedical. East Millstone, New Jersey. Personal communication,
February and May, 1994.

Campagna, P.R. and A. Humphrey. 1992 Air sampling and monitoring at the Kuwait oil
well fires. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Arctic and Maine Oil Spill Program Technical
Seminar, June 10-12, 1992, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 575-592.

Dockery, D.W., J. Schwartz, and J. D. Spengler. 1992. Air pollution and daily mortality:
associations with particulates and acid aerosols. Environmental Research 59: 362-373.
Evans, D.D., W.D. Walton, H.R. Baum, K.A. Notarianni, J.R. Lawson, H.C. Tang, K.R.
Keydel, R.G. Rehm, D. Madrzykowski, R.H. Zile, H. Koseki, and E.J. Tennyson. 1992.
In-situ burning of oil spills: Mesoscale experiments. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Arctic
and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 10-12, 1992, Edmonton, Alberta,
pp. 593-657.

Experimental Burn Committee, 1993. NOBE Facts. Volume 5, September 1993. Ottawa,
Ontario: Newfoundland Burn Experiment Committee.
Fahys, J. 1990. Exxon officials rate Valdez waste management plan a success. HAZMAT
World, February 1990, pp 28-30.

Ferek, R. 1994. Personal communication, March 1994.
Ferriere, D. 1993. Waste minimization concepts applied to oil spill response.
Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference, March 29-April 1 1993, Tampa,
Florida, pp 111-1115.

Fingas, M. F., K. Li, F. Ackerman, P. R. Campagna, R. D. Turpin, S. J. Getty, M. F.
Soleki, M. J. Trespalacios, J. Pare, M. C. Bissonnette, and E. J. Tennyson. 1993.
Emissions from mesoscale in-situ oil fires: the Mobile 1991 and 1992 tests. Proceedings
of the Sixteenth Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 7-9, 1993,
Calgary, Alberta, pp. 749-823.

Fingas, M.F., F. Ackerman, K. Li, P. Lambert, Z. Wang, M. C. Bissonnette, P.R.
Campagna, P. Boileau, N. Laroche, P. Jokuty, R. Nelson, R. Turpin, M.J. Trespalacios,
G. Halley, J. Belanger, J. Pare, N. Vanderkooy, E. Tennyson, D. Aurand, and R.
Hiltabrand. 1994. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment – NOBE preliminary
results of emissions measurement. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Arctic and Marine Oil
Spill Program Technical Seminar, June 8-10, 1994, Vancouver, British Columbia, pp.
1099-1164.

9
Pope, C.A. III, J. Schwartz, and M.R. Ransom. 1992. Daily mortality and PM-10
pollution in Utah valley. Archives of Environmental Health 47: 211-217
Schwartz, J., 1992. Particulate air pollution and daily mortality: a synthesis. Public
Health Review 19: 39-60

Wright, G.R. 1978. The pulmonary effects of inhaled inorganic dust. G.D. Clayton and
F.E. Clayton, eds., Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, Volume 1: General. New
York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 165-202.

This entry was posted in Gulf Oil Spill & Health and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Burnoff – Adverse Health Effects

  1. Susan says:

    I would like to know if anyone is measuring the chemicals that are being emitted from the current gulf oil spill. I understand that the benzene and methane levels are particularlly high due to the levels coming out of the ground, supposedly more than what has been previously emitted from other wells. I live in the Tampa Bay area and I am wondering if the burn off could reach our area in the form of either rain (in the clouds) or air (wind).

  2. Diane says:

    Dear Susan:

    Thank you for your letter of concern. I will do my best to answer your questions:

    The EPA does indeed take daily measurements in and around the areas of the spill. You can view the results of that data from all of the monitoring stations at http://epa.gov/bpspill/air.html.

    You may subscribe to air quality daily notifications to be sent to you directly for your specific areas of concern by going to: http://www.enviroflash.info/. Currently according to the data I see Tampa air quality as being listed as “Good” 50 AQI (PM2.5) . The following PDF explains what these measurements mean: http://www.enviroflash.info/assets/pdf/AQI_2003_9-3.pdf

    I have also found one of the nation’s leading experts on air quality to be Gina M. Solomon. She provides a weekly summary of air and health conditions on the oil spill as part of her role as Senior Scientist at the NRDC. Her updates are very useful and clear. They can be found at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/air_quality_tables.html

    I will present your question directly to her and post her answer for you here.

    Thank you for your letter. Diane Michel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>