4.7 Article

Radiocarbon evidence that carbon from the Deepwater Horizon spill entered the planktonic food web of the Gulf of Mexico

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045303

Keywords

radiocarbon; carbon isotope; petroleum hydrocarbon; methane; Gulf oil spill

Funding

  1. BP/The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative through the Florida Institute of Oceanography
  2. Northern Gulf Institute
  3. Deep C Consortium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Deepwater Horizon (Macondo) oil spill released large volumes of oil and gas of distinct carbon isotopic composition to the northern Gulf of Mexico, allowing Graham et al (2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 045301) to use stable carbon isotopes (delta C-13) to infer the introduction of spilled oil into the planktonic food web. Surface ocean organic production and measured oil are separated by 5-7 parts per thousand in stable carbon isotope (delta C-13) space, while in radiocarbon (Delta C-14) space these two potential sources are separated by more than 1000 parts per thousand. Thus radiocarbon isotopes provide a more sensitive tracer by which to infer possible introduction of Macondo oil into the food web. We measured Delta C-14 and delta C-13 in plankton collected from within 100 km of the spill site as well as in coastal and offshore DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon or Sigma CO2) to constrain surface production values. On average, plankton values were depleted in C-14 relative to surface DIC, and we found a significant linear correlation between Delta C-14 and delta C-13 in plankton. Cumulatively, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that carbon released from the Deepwater Horizon spill contributed to the offshore planktonic food web. Our results support the findings of Graham et al (2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 045301), but we infer that methane input may be important.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available