Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-31T09:08:23.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toxicity of oil-spill removers (‘detergents’) to marine life: an assessment using the intertidal barnacle Elminius modestus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

E. D. S. Corner ,
A. J. Southward  and
E. C. Southward
E. D. S. Corner
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory
A. J. Southward
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory
E. C. Southward
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The oil-spill removers BP 1002, Gamlen, Slipclean and Dasic have been tested for toxicity using the barnacle Elminius modestus Darwin. All four substances were more toxic than the laboratory detergent Teepol-L, and Kuwait crude oil. BP 1002 was the most toxic of the oil-spill removers, and Dasic the least, but all were poisonous at concentrations between 2 and 10 ppm.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 1968 , pp. 29 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Burstone, M. S., 1962. Enzyme Histochemistry and its Application to the study of Neoplasms. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corner, E. D. S. & Sparrow, B. W., 1956. The modes of action of toxic agents. I. Observations on the poisoning of certain crustaceans by copper and mercury. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 35, pp. 531–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corner, E. D. S. & Sparrow, B. W., 1957. The modes of action of toxic agents. II. Factors influencing the toxicities of mercury compounds to certain Crustacea. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 36, pp. 459–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, D. J., 1958. The spread of Elminius modestus in north-west Europe. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 37, pp. 483–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, D. J., Christie, A. O. & Ghobashy, A. F. A., 1967. Narcotic and toxic action of organic compounds on barnacle larvae. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., Vol. 22, pp. 629–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, D. J. & Davies, P. A., 1955. Observations in vivo on the breeding of Elminius modestus grown on glass slides. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 34, pp. 357–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, D. J. & Meadows, P. S., 1963. Adsorbed layers: the stimulus to settlement in barnacles. Proc. R. Soc. B, Vol. 158, pp. 364–87.Google Scholar
Crisp, D. J. & Southward, A. J., 1961. Different types of cirral activity of barnacles. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, Vol. 243, pp. 271–308.Google Scholar
Davis, J. B., 1967. Petroleum Microbiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
George, M., 1961. Oil pollution of marine organisms. Nature, Lond., Vol. 192, p. 1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight-Jones, E. W., 1955. The gregarious setting reaction of barnacles as a measure of systematic affinity. Nature, Lond., Vol. 175, pp. 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight-Jones, E. W. & Waugh, G. D., 1949. On the larval development of Elminius modestus Darwin. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 28, pp. 413–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P. R., 1958. A simultaneous coupling azo-dye technique suitable for whole mounts. Q. Jl microsc. Sci., Vol. 99, pp. 67–71.Google Scholar
Manwell, C. & Baker, C. M. A., 1967. A study of detergent pollution by molecular methods: Starch-gel electrophoresis of a variety of enzymes and other proteins. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 47, pp. 659–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, R., 1965. Critical review of the effects of synthetic detergents on aquatic life. Stud. Rev. gen. Fish. Coun. Medit., No. 26, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Moyse, J., 1963. A comparison of the value of various flagellates and diatoms as food for barnacle larvae. J. Cons. int. explor. Mer, Vol. 28, pp. 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'sullivan, A. J. & Richardson, A. J., 1967. The ‘Torrey Canyon’ disaster and intertidal marine life. Nature, Lond., Vol. 214, pp. 448, 541–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provasoli, L. & Shiraishi, K., 1959. Axenic cultivation of the brine shrimp Anemia salina. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole, Vol. 117, pp. 347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southward, A. J., 1957. On the behaviour of barnacles. III. Further observations on the influence of temperature and age on cirral activity. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 36, pp. 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southward, A. J. & Crisp, D. J., 1963. Barnacles of European Waters. Catalogue of Main Marine Fouling Organisms, Vol. I. Paris: O.E.C.D.Google Scholar
Southward, E. C. & Southward, A. J., 1966. A preliminary account of the general and enzyme histochemistry of Siboglinum atlanticum and other Pogonophora. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 46, pp. 579–616.Google Scholar
Wiseley, B., 1960. Experiments on rearing the barnacle Elminius modestus Darwin to lie settling stage in the laboratory. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res., Vol. 2, pp. 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar