Water Quality, Exposure and Health

, Volume 2, Issue 3–4, pp 157–168 | Cite as

The Effect of Pore Water Chemistry on the Biodegradation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

  • Youness Sharifi
  • Benoit Van Aken
  • Michel C. BoufadelEmail author


Knowledge of the oxygen and nutrient concentrations in an oil-contaminated Prince William Sound (PWS) beach is important for understanding of the oil persistence over two decades after the Exxon Valdez spill. It was traditionally believed that there was enough oxygen in the contaminated shorelines to sustain aerobic microbial metabolism of oil and that nutrients were the major factors limiting oil biodegradation. In the present study, we analyzed the oxygen and nutrients levels in both clean and oily areas on a PWS beach that was heavily contaminated by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We found that the level of nitrogen and phosphorous were 0.454 mg-N L−1 and 0.033 mg-P L−1, respectively, which is not sufficient to fully support microbial growth, confirming that nutrient concentration was a major factor limiting oil transformation by biological ways. We also observed that the oxygen level varied from higher than 3 mg L−1 in the clean wells to about 1 mg L−1 (near anoxic level) in the oily wells. In addition, the lowest nitrate levels were observed at the oily wells. Altogether, these results suggest that the low level of efficient electron acceptors (oxygen and nitrate) detected at the oily spot is responsible for slow and potentially inefficient biodegradation of the oil.


Exxon Valdez Oil spill Biodegradation Nutrients Dissolved oxygen Electron acceptors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ASTM F1687-97 (2003) Standard guides for terminology and indicies to describe oiling condition on shoreline. ASTM International Google Scholar
  2. Atlas R, Bragg J (2009a) Bioremediation of marine oil spills: when and when not—the Exxon Valdez experience. Microb Biotechnol 2(2):213–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlas R, Bragg JR (2009b) Evaluation of PAH depletion of subsurface Exxon Valdez oil residues remaining in prince William sound in 2007–2008 and their likely bioremediation potential. In: Proc 32nd AMOP technical seminar on environmental contamination and response, June 9, 2009–June 11, Canada, pp 723–747 Google Scholar
  4. Bang I, Mooers CNK (2003) The influence of several factors controlling the interactions between Prince William Sound, Alaska, and the Northern Gulf of Alaska. J Phys Oceanogr 33(1):19–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehm PD, Page DS, Brown JS, Neff JM, Bragg JR, Atlas RM (2008) Distribution and weathering of crude oil residues on shorelines 18 years after the Exxon Valdez spill. Environ Sci Technol 42(24):9210–9216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boufadel MC (2000) A mechanistic study of nonlinear solute transport in a groundwater-surface water system under steady state and transient hydraulic conditions. Water Resour Res 36(9):2549–2565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boufadel MC, Reeser P, Suidan MT, Wrenn BA, Cheng J, Du X, Venosa AD (1999) Optimal nitrate concentration for the biodegradation of n-heptadecane in a variably-saturated sand column. Environ Technol 20:191–199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boufadel MC, Sharifi Y, Van Aken, B, Wrenn, BA, Lee, K (2010). Nutrient and oxygen concentrations within the sediments of an Alaskan beach polluted with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Sci Technol 44:7418–7424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bragg J, Prince R, Harner E, Atlas R (1994) Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nature 368(6470):413–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carls MG, Babcock MM, Harris PM, Irvine GV, Cusick JA, Rice SD (2001) Persistence of oiling in mussel beds after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Mar Environ Res 51(2):167–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper WS (1942) Vegetation of the Prince William Sound Region, Alaska; with a brief excursion into post-pleistocene climatic history. Ecol Monogr 12(1):1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dore JE, Houlihan T, Hebel DV, Tien G, Tupas L, Karl DM (1996) Freezing as a method of sample preservation for the analysis of dissolved inorganic nutrients in seawater. Mar Chem 53(3–4):173–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du X, Reeser P, Suidan MT, Huang TL, Moteleb M, Boufadel MC, Venosa A (1999) Optimal nitrate concentration supporting maximum crude oil biodegradation in microcosms. In: Proceedings of international oil spill conference, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, p 1999 Google Scholar
  14. Eslinger DL, Cooney RT, McRoy CP, Ward A, Kline TC, Simpson EP, Wang J, Allen JR (2001) Plankton dynamics: observed and modelled responses to physical conditions in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fish Oceanogr 10:81–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feely RA, Sabine CL, Hernandez-Ayon JM, Ianson D, Hales B (2008) Evidence for upwelling of corrosive “Acidified” water onto the continental shelf. Science 320(5882):1490–1492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gay SM, Vaughan SL (2001) Seasonal hydrography and tidal currents of bays and fjords in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fish Oceanogr 10:159–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grasshoff K, Kremling K, Ehrhadt M (1999) Methods of seawater analysis. Wiley/VCH, Weinheim CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H, Boufadel MC, Weaver JW (2008) Tide induced seawater-groundwater circulation in shallow beach aquifer. J Hydrol 352:211–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li H, Boufadel MC (2010) Long-term persistence of oil from the Exxon Valdez Spill in two-layer beaches. Nat Geosci 3(2:96–:99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liebeg EW, Cutright TJ (1999) The investigation of enhanced bioremediation through the addition of macro and micro nutrients in a PAH contaminated soil. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 44(1):55–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Margesin R, Schinner F (1998) Oil biodegradation potential in Alpine habitats. Arct Alp Res 30(3):262–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michel, J, Nixon, Z, Cotsapas, L (2006) Evaluation of oil remediation technologies for lingering oil from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, pp 1–61 Google Scholar
  23. Neff JM, Owens EH, Stoker SW, McCormick DM (1995) Shoreline oiling conditions in prince William sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on environmental toxicology and risk assessment, April 26, 1993–April 28, ASTM, pp 312-346 Google Scholar
  24. Owens EH, Taylor E, Humphrey B (2008) The persistence and character of stranded oil on coarse-sediment beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 56(1):14–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Page DS, Boehm PD, Neff JM (2008) Shoreline type and subsurface oil persistence in the Exxon Valdez spill zone of Prince William Sound, Alaska. In: Proc 31st AMOP technical seminar on environmental contamination and response, June 3, 2008–June 5, Canada, pp 545–563 Google Scholar
  26. Peterson CH, Rice SD, Short JW, Esler D, Bodkin JL, Ballachey BE, Irons DB (2003) Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082–2086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Postgate JR (1998) Nitrogen fixation, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  28. Pritchard PH, Costa CF (1991) EPA’s Alaska oil-spill bioremediation project. Environ Sci Technol 25(3):372–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seal Analytical (2008) AutoAnalyzer3 User Guide. SEAL Analytical, Mequon Google Scholar
  30. Short JW, Maselko JM, Lindeberg MR, Harris PM, Rice SD (2006) Vertical distribution and probability of encountering intertidal Exxon Valdez oil on shorelines of three embayments within Prince William Sound, Alaska. Environ Sci Technol 40(12):3723–3729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Short JW, Lindeberg MR, Harris PM, Maselko JM, Pella JJ, Rice SD (2004) Estimate of oil persisting on the beaches of Prince William Sound 12 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Sci Technol 38(1):19–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slomp CP, Van Cappellen P (2004) Nutrient inputs to the coastal ocean through submarine groundwater discharge: controls and potential impact. J Hydrol 295(1–4):64–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone, R (1992) Environmental-research - oil-cleanup method questioned. Science 257:320–321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor E, Reimer D (2008) Oil persistence on beaches in Prince William Sound—a review of SCAT surveys conducted from 1989 to 2002. Mar Pollut Bull 56(3):458–474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ullman WJ, Chang B, Miller DC, Madsen JA (2003) Groundwater mixing, nutrient diagenesis, and discharges across a sandy beachface, Cape Henlopen, Delaware (USA). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 57:539–552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Urish DW, McKenna TE (2004) Tidal effects on ground water discharge through a sandy marine beach. Ground Water 42(7):971–982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. US Environmental Protection Agency (1983) Sample preservation. In: Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. USEPA, Cincinnati, p xv–xx Google Scholar
  38. Vaughan SL, Mooers CNK, Gay SM (2001) Physical variability in Prince William Sound during the SEA study (1994–98). Fish Oceanogr 10:58–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venosa AD, Suidan MT, Wrenn BA, Strohmeier KL, Haines J, Eberhart BL, King D, Holder E (1996) Bioremediation of an experimental oil spill on the shoreline of Delaware bay. Environ Sci Technol 30:1764–1775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu X, Venosa A, Suidman M, Lee K (2001) Guidelines for the bioremediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. US Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Laboratory. Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, Cincinnati Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youness Sharifi
    • 1
  • Benoit Van Aken
    • 1
  • Michel C. Boufadel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTemple UniversitySt. PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations