1、API PUBL*Ll594 95 9 0732290 0542886 Ta9 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL S c I ENC ES DEPARTMENT API PUBLICATION NUMBER 4594 JANUARY 1995 A Critical Review of Toxicity Values and an Evaluation of the Persistence of Petroleum Products for Use in Natural Resource Damage Assessments “I Envimnmenral Partnmbip A
2、merican Petroleum Institute API PUBLU4594 95 0732290 0542887 715 A Critical Review of Toxicity Values and an Evaluation of the Persistence of Petroleum Products for Use in Natural Resource Damage Assessments Health and Environmental Sciences Department API PUBLICATION NUMBER 4594 PREPARED UNDER CONT
3、RACT BY: RALPH K. MARKARIAN, PH.D., JOSEPH P. NICOLETTE, TIMOTHY R. BARBER, PH.D., AND LAURA H. GIESE ENTRIX, INC. 200 BELLVUE PARKWAY, SUITE 200 WILMINGTON, DE 19809 SEPTEMBER 1994 Enurronmrnral Partnnrhrp American Petroleum Institute API PUBL84594 95 m 0732290 0542888 851 m FOREWORD API PUBLICATIO
4、NS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFAC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES
5、, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. INFORMATION CONCERNING SAFETY AND HEALTH RISKS AND PROPER PRE- CAUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE EMP
6、LOYER, THE MANUFACTURER, OR SUPPLIER OF THAT MATERIAL, OR THE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COV- ERED BY LETTERS PATE
7、NT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR I”GEMENT OF LETERS PATENT. HARDWARE AND OPERATING SYSTEM SOFIWARE REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF THIS SOFTWARE ARE SPECIFIED IN THIS MANUAL. THIS SOFTWARE HAS BEEN TESTED EXTENSIVELY; HOWEVER, API DOES NOT AND CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE FORESEEN NOR ELIMINATED ALL
8、 POTENTIAL PROGRAM INTERFERENCES, HARDWARE INCOMPATIBILITIES, OR OTHER LIMITATIONS OF SOFTWARE USE. ALTHOUGH API WELCOMES COMMENTS ON THE OPERATION AND UTILITY BASIS AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SOFTWARE USER SUPPORT. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- OF THIS SOFTWARE, API IS D
9、ISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE ON AN “AS-IS” API PUBLW4594 95 H 0732270 0542889 798 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRTBUTIONS OF TIME AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT: API STAFF CONTACTS Stephanie Meadows, Health and Environmental Affa
10、irs Department Alexis Steen, Health and Environmental Sciences Department MEMBERS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE James W. Scialabba. BP Oil Company Jerry F. Hall, Ph.D., Texaco Research Lawrence A. Reitsema, Ph.D., Marathon Oil Company John Monarch, Chevron* Stephen H. Bard, Te
11、xaco Inc. Thacher W. White, Mobil Oil Corporation Robert E. Abbott, Ph. D., Conoco Inc. Janis M. Farmer, BP America Research and Development Marion Fischel, Shell Oil Company* ENTRIX PROJECT TEAM Ralph K. Markarian, Ph.D. Joseph P. Nicolette Timothy R. Barber, Ph.D. Laura H. Giese *no longer with th
12、is organization iii API PUBL*4594 95 M 0732290 0542890 40T PREFACE This study addresses the quality and reliability of values used for denoting the acute toxicity of crudes and oil products in aquatic environments. The scientific literature was reviewed and acute toxicity data were selected using st
13、rict quality control and quaity assurance criteria. The god of this effort was to compile, analyze, and present an overview of these data by oil product* and taxonomic group. There were a variety of data gaps and problems in comparing conventional LCSO values between studies. Methodological differen
14、ces between data sets were an important consideration, and special care must be used in predicting biological impacts using these acute toxicity data. Very little published data exists for gasoline, jet fuel, and lube oil product groups. Additionally, acute toxicity data were sparse for the algal ta
15、xonomic group. Majority of data were available for the diesel, crude and bunker oil groups. Only oil product toxicity data were utilized in this study and not oil product component data (e.g., naphthalenes, benzene, etc.). Statistical comparisons were performed at a conservative level in order to de
16、termine significance. in all cases, the number of data points available in each comparison should be considered when reviewing the statistical results. Additionally, oil products were ranked based upon their median toxicity values, and a relative ranking scale is provided. Relative product toxicity
17、rankings are based on comparisons of median toxicity values and differences shown may or may not be statistically significant. A limited level of effort was applied for providing a relative persistence scale for oil products released into the environment. It should be emphasized that this analysis h
18、as a number of quaiifications. Crudes and oil products are characterized with a broad range of physiochemical data. An equilibrium-based model was used to estimate relative persistence and differentiate between classes of petroleum products (independent of site- and spill-specific information). The
19、scope of this effort did not allow specific consideration of several important environmental parameters that influence the fate of spilled petroleum products (e.g., wind speed, wave energy, currents, water depth, and habitat). This treatment is not compound specific. *Note: The term “oil product(s)“
20、 is used in this report to include crude oil and oil products. API PUBL*4594 95 0732290 0542893 346 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . e5-1 1.0 CIAFTER 1: REVIEW OF TOXICITY VALUES . 1-1 1.1 NTRODUCTION . 1-1 1.2 METHODOLOGY: ANALYSIS AND RA“G OF TOXICITY VALUES . 1-4 1.2.1 Literature Search and
21、Collection . 1-4 1.2.1.1 Searching and Screening of Literamre citarions . 1-4 1.2.1.2 On-line Databases . 1-4 1.2.1.2.1 Dialog Information Services 1-5 1.2.1.2.2 Chemical Information Services . 1-6 1.2.1.3 Other Sources of Data 1-7 1.2.1.4 Selection and Collection of Pemneni Literantre 1-8 1.2.2 Dat
22、abase Development 1-9 1.2.2.1 Key Sn Parameters 1-9 1.2.2.1.1 Oil Product 1-9 1.2.2.1.2 Study Purpose Endpoint . 1-13 1.2.2.1.3 Agitation Duration During Preparation . 1-13 1.2.2.1.4 Free Product Present or Absent 1-13 1.2.2.1.5 Analytically Measured Exposures 1-13 1.2.2.1.6 Test Chamber . 1-14 1.2.
23、2.1.7 Single Ratio/Multiple Ratio Test Designs . . 1-14 1.2.2.1.8 Reliabiiity Code 1-16 1.2.2.2 Data Entry 1-17 1.2.2.3 Data QA/QC . 1-18 1.2.3 Analysis and Ranking of Toxicity Values 1-18 API PUBL*4574 75 0732290 0542872 282 W 1.3 1.2.3.1 StmsticaI Analyses 1-18 1.2.3.2 Approach 1-24 1.2.3.2.1 Oil
24、Product Toxicity Values 1-24 1.2.3.2.3 The LU0 Concept . 1-26 1.2.3.2.2 Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-26 RESULTS : ANALYSIS AND RA“G OF TOXICITY VALUES . 1-29 1.3.1 Literature Search and Collection of Toxicity Data 1-29 1.3.1.1 1.3.1.2 Characterizmon of Petroleum Toxicis, Literature . 1-29 cha
25、racterization of Emacted Data . 1-30 1.3.2 Analysis and Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-33 1.3.2.1 Invenebrates: Free Product Absent . 1-34 1.3.2.1.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-34 Lifestage Comparisons 1-39 1.3.2.1.2 Ranking of oil Product Toxicity . 1-45 Oil Product Group Comparisons . 1-34 Met
26、hodological Procedure Comparisons 1-41 1.3.2.2 Invertebrates: Free Product Present 1-47 1.3.2.2.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-47 Lifestage Comparisons 1-49 1.3.2.2.2 Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-56 Oil Product Group Comparisons . 1-47 Methodological Procedure Comparisons 1-54 1.3.2.3 Fish: Fre
27、e Product Absent . 1-57 1.3.2.3.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-57 Oil Product Group Comparisons . 1-57 Lifestage Comparisons 1-59 Methodological Procedure Comparisons 1-64 1.3.2.3.2 Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-67 1.3.2.4 Fish: Free Product Present 1-68 1.3.2.4.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-68 O
28、il Product Group Comparisons . 1-68 API PUBL*4574 95 m 0732290 O542873 117 = Lifestage Comparisons 1-72 Methodological Procedure Comparisons 1-75 1.3.2.4.2 Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-78 1.3.2.5 Algae: Free Product Absent 1-80 1.3.2.5.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-80 Oil Product Group Compari
29、sons . 1-80 Methodological Procedure Comparisons 1-80 1.3.2.5.2 Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-85 1.3.2.6 Algae: Free Product Present . 1-85 1.3.2.6.1 Median Toxicity Values . 1-85 Oil Product Group Comparisons . 1-85 Methodological Procedure Comparisons 1-90 1.3.2.6.2 Ranking of Oil Product To
30、xicity . 1-92 1.3.3 LL50 Value Calculations 1-92 1.4. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY: ANALYSIS AND RANKING OF TOXICITY VALUES . 1-94 1.4.1 Literature Search and Collection . 1-94 1.4.2 Analysis and Ranking of Oil Product Toxicity . 1-95 2.0 CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND RA“G OF OIL PRODUCT PERSISTENCE . 2-1 2.1 I
31、NTRODUCTION . 2-1 2.2 METHODOLOGY 2-3 2.2.1 Physical Properties . 2-3 2.2.1.1 Molecular Weight . 2-4 2.2.1.2 Waer Solubilizy . 2-4 2.2.1.3 Vapor Pressure 2-4 2.2.1.4 OctarwlNater Partition Coefieiem 2-6 2.2.2 Equilibrium Partitioning Model 2-6 2.2.3 Ranking of Oil Product Persistence 2-7 2.3 RESULTS
32、 AND DISCUSSION 2-8 2.3.1 Model Input Parameters . 2-8 API PUBL*4594 95 0732290 0542894 055 2.3.2 Crude Oil and Oil Product Persistence 2-8 2.3.3 Numerical Persistence Scale 2-16 2.4 SUMMARY 2-17 3.0 CHAPTER 3: OIL PRODUCT TOXICITY AND PERSISTENCE: A PERSPECTIVE . 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION . 3-1 3.2 TOXI
33、CY OF OIL . 3-1 3.3 PERSISTENCE AND O IL PRODUCTS . 3-3 3.3.1 Persistence: Toxicity Based Concerns 3-3 3.3.2 Persistence: Habitat Base Concerns . 3-5 3.4 SUMMARY 3-5 4.0 REFERENCES . 4-1 APPENDIX A: ARTICLES COLLECTED AND REVIEWED . A-1 ARTICLES UTILIZED IN THE TOXICITY DATABASE . A-14 APPENDIX B: R
34、JSULTS OF STATISTICAL COMPARISONS OF OIL PRODUCT AND TESTING METHODOLOGIES . B-1 APPENDIX c: DATA CLASSIFIED AS LOW RELIABILITY c-1 APPENDIX D: OILTOX DATABASE SYSTEM VERSION 1.0 USERS GUIDE . D-1 API PUBL*4594 95 0732290 0542895 T7L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State agencies (e.g., Alaska, Washington and Flo
35、rida) have initiated tabular methods and formulas for assessing natural resource damages associated with oil product or crude oil spills within their jurisdictions. An important aspect in each of the state initiatives deals with the toxicity and persistence of the spilled hydrocarbons. A central asp
36、ect of toxicity evaluations are the LC50 values used to denote acute toxicity of oil products. How reliable are LC5Os for ranking oil product toxicity? The quality and reliability of the values used for denoting oil product toxicity are the main topics of this investigation. In addition, a more limi
37、ted effort was made to compare the relative persistence of oil products released into the environment. Finally, a discussion regarding the relative roles of product toxicity and persistence in predicting biological injury is presented. The results of this effort are presented in 3 chapters as follow
38、s: CHAPTER 1 : CHAPTER 2: CHAPTER 3: REVIEW AND RANKING OF TOXICITY VALUES ANALYSIS AND RANKING OF OIL PRODUCT PERSISTENCE OIL PRODUCT TOXICITY AND PERSISTENCE: A PERSPECTIVE Chapter 1: Approximately 8,000 references on the fate and effects of oil products in aquatic systems were screened. The major
39、ity of the selected articles were published in the mid to late 1970s. While there was an adequate number of high quality articles, comparability between papers was limited due to variability in test methodologies. In order to determine the relative impact of the methodological differences on LC50 va
40、lues, key method parameters were selected and added to a computerized database. This allowed investigators to sort on key methodological differences between studies and evaluate if and how laboratory methods impacted the actual LC50 values. The final database contained 748 toxicity values. The major
41、ity of the data was on crude oils (55%) and diesel (3 1%). Gasoline, jet fuel, and lube oil comprised less than 7% of the total number of toxicity values in the database. Invertebrate data comprised 65.4% of the data in the database. Fish comprised 26.6% of the data, while algae comprised only 8% of
42、 the data. As the basic data on methods and results were analyzed it became apparent that one of the major factors in influencing LC50 values was the presence or absence of free product in the test chambers. Since the presence or absence of free product in the test chamber was found to have the larg
43、est impact on reported LC50 values, it was maintained as the major sorting factor throughout this study. In many cases, methodological procedures had an effect on the resulting LC50 values. Reported LC50 values for the same oil product often differed significantly based on: whether the test chambers
44、 were open or closed, if the test was conducted in freshwater or saltwater, and how long oil water solutions were mixed prior to adding test organisms. Finally it was found that LCSOs ES- 1 API PUBL*4594 95 07322C10 0542896 928 H calculated and reported for similar products were very different based
45、 on which “concentration“ values were used in the fmal calculations. Some were based on dissolved hydrocarbons from single oi1:water ratio test solutions, others were based on multiple ratio test solutions, others were based on tests that used measured concentration data from individual test chamber
46、s, and fmally some were based on nominal concentrations. The importance of methods was expected and investigators planned from the outset to utilize a database that was designed to allow comparisons of toxicity values developed and based on similar methods. The database was developed into a computer
47、 program referred to as “OILTOX“. With the help of this program, the user can find, review, sort, and print out individual LC50 values used in this study. The user is also able to query the database and ask for data on select test species, products, and toxicity test method characteristics. The prog
48、ram also allows the user to link the individual LC50 value to a specific reference. The program does not include every possible LC50 value available since certain quality criteria were used prior to deciding whether data should be included in this study. The database was provided to API as a separat
49、e diskette along with a brief users manual. Median toxicity values were computed for each oil product and taxonomic group once the data were sorted by the absence and presence of free product in the test solutions. In all cases for a given product type, tests conducted with “free product absent“ solutions reported lower LC50 values when compared to respective “free product present“ LC50 values. Approximately 75% of the data records were for “free product absent“ studies while 25% of the data records were for “free product present“ studies. Suitable algal data sets were not found
