Abstract:

Three different (Chemical Response to Oil Spills Environmental Research Forum (CROSERF), flow through tank and silicone tube) water accommodated fraction (WAF) making procedures were compared in terms of their WAF's estimated oil equivalence (EOE) values over time. EOE values were measured in Aqualog Horiba fluorometer. EOE values of WAF provide information about the chemical composition and stability (over time) of WAF made through these different WAF making procedures.

Suggested Citation:

Gopal Bera. Anthony Knap, Terry L Wade, Jose Sericano, Stephen T Sweet, Gerardo Gold. 2016. Estimated Oil Equivalence (EOE) of Water Accommodated Fraction (WAF) made through three different procedures. Distributed by: GRIIDC, Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. doi:10.7266/N7KS6PM7

Purpose:

To compare three methods (i.e. standard CROSERF, Silicone Tube and flow-through Tank) in terms of their ability to make stable water accommodated fraction (WAF) and chemically enhanced water accommodated fraction (CEWAF).

Data Parameters and Units:

Estimated Oil Equivalence (EOE) are expressed as mg/L. EOE values were plotted against time (hours).

Methods:

Experiments: Oil: oil loading for all experiments was 0.84 ml/2L Maconde surrogate oil; 2 L Aspirator saline (34.2 ppt); 2 L Aspirator with freshwater; 2 L Aspirator saline (34.2 ppt) with silicone tube; 2 L Aspirator freshwater with silicon tube; Freshwater tank. Corexit amount: 5% of the amount of oil added. 360 mg of Maconde surrogate oil was added to 2L of fresh water for an oil concentration of 180 mg/L. The treatments were: Oil only in Si tube; Corexit in water, oil in tube; Oil and corexit in tube (added separately); Premixed oil and Corexit.

Instruments:

A fluorometer (Aqualog Horiba) was used to measure the EOE values in dichloromethane (DCM) extracted WAF.

Error Analysis:

More than 95% samples were taken with duplicates. The final EOE values are average of the sample and its corresponding duplicate.

Individual Files: