|
What they did: We developed little noticed theory and measurements regarding the rates and mechanisms of hydrocarbon degradation in sediments and the water column. As I recall we deduced the composition of the dispersant. Don't remember details of the inipol experiments but they were not reported in the refereed literature by us and therefore not impressive. Feeling probably was that it may help break up a continuous oil phase in a mixed environment where it would be broken up in any case |
| Q: The literature
says the density of Inipol EAP 22 is .9 - being less than water,
would that mean it would be absorbed into cells more easily?
|
| Answer: "The key factor is hydophobicity sometimes measured as water: octanol partition coefficient. If I got the structure right, it should be absorbed by the skin fairly easily." |
... Another chemist comments on density *
| Q: How much of what
you did was theory?
|
| Answer: "Theory is my mainstay but we were involved in both lab and field work." |
| Q: How much did any lab
techs work with the real ingredients?
|
| Answer: "Little; I was proposing use of monoterpenes like in orange skin and pine needles and testing that." |
|
Q: I ask, because the 2-butoxyethanol... being the only ingredient mentioned on the MSDS causes the blood damage that is mentioned seemingly with very little contact... & I was hoping all the lab techs were OK? People first notice a tired-all-the-time feeling Q: It also appears that there couldn't have been much lab testing before field testing.
|
| Answer: "Yep." |
| Q: As to the ingredients of Inipol EAP 22 being
biodegradable... but as you say the rate of biodegrading would be slower in cold
water vs. 77 degree lab setting?
|
| Answer: This should degrade slowly, ethoxy
groups are tough but ethoxy groups are easier and the laurel group degrades
easily as does phosphate esters which I think that is although there are some
critical oxygens missing. The bulky tryethoxy adds a little recalcitrance.
- Chemicals being commented on * |
| EPA approved an experiment 7-26-89 * EPA approval, in general, does it mean anything? If it was realized that appropriate exposure limits could not be followed in an oil spill setting... nor appropriate Level IV gear provided, would that mean the harm to people would be too great to allow it for use in oil spill cleanup settings? |
NOTE: Inipol EAP 22 originated 7-28-89,
an Exxon owned product with MSDS by Exxon -
revamped an old formula... started using in August, 1989
|
Similar question about biodegradability being asked of another chemist: but I was also wondering about biodegradable qualities of each ingredient, therefore the compound, Inipol EAP 22 If all ingredients are biodegradable at 77 degrees F in the lab....but in colder temperatures, like Alaska water, the rate is slower? ... is it possible that it could be so slow, as to be 'suspended' in a non biodegraded state? |
Sort of an odd thing,
but the sea lion population in the North Pacific is declining... *
in that they are mammals
& until the chemicals biodegrade,
they are harmful to mammals, says Exxon Scientist,
could that have had an effect?
|
RE: rate of biodegradation
Comments
another chemist: I suppose it might be very slow. Here in Texas we
usually don't have that problem since the temperatures are adequate for
bioremediation.
|
It is well established
that microbial activity drops significantly from 30 degrees C to 10 degrees C
At temperatures of 4 degrees C, most microbial activity ceases
Note: on 10-02-02 at 9AM the temperature of Valdez Harbor water,
at the surface (per buoy temperature reported to the Federal Weather Service)
is 52 degrees F.
Little more than 10 degrees C
|
Exxon's senior staff biochemist,
Roger Prince, makes the following comment
"While 2-butoxyethanol is biodegradable, it is potentially harmful to mammals if a sufficient amount is absorbed through the skin."
|
|
This comment relates to the 2-buoxythanol used in Inipol EAP 22: Note, the MSDS 9-25-01 for Inipol EAP 22 in item #12 comments: 2-butoxyethanol is the one ingredient that is said to be readily biodegradable ....because of it's high oxygen demand. (70%?). * Then a comment that urea is slowly biodegraded in river waters.
Does the MSDS of 2-butoxyethanol give more
information? *
& to restate...says a Texas chemist in favor of
inorganic fertilizer (no carbon):
"A concern with INIPOL is that, because it is a carbon based fertilizer, it adds more carbon to the system and requires even more oxygen for complete degradation.
|
| If INIPOL + Oil end up stranded on a beach, what guarantee is there that there will be enough oxygen to transform all of that stuff to carbon dioxide and water? (NONE) By using inorganic fertilizer (no carbon) you don't need extra oxygen to breakdown the carbon in the fertilizer IN ADDITION TO the carbon from the crude oil. |
Answer: Yes. It means that biodegradation is faster at higher temperatures.
|
Note: RCAC does not recommend use of dispersants in oil spill cleanups, but fear that the state would rule over their objections and re-approve if Exxon should want to use again. Links on Technical reports of "Citizens organized Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) A White Paper on Oil Spill Dispersant Field Testing. Merv Fingas, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada. May 2002. (1,872KB)A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersants Especially Relevant to Alaska. Merv Fingas, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada. March 2002. (975KB) |
Home Page: www.valdezlink.com/inipol