SHOCK: Gulf water sample "explodes" when tested
If you aren't pissed-off enough already with the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf, watching this news report might make you let out a few more expletives. The video is genuine but still unbelievable.
Via WKRG in Mobile, Alabama-Pensacola, Florida.
News Five collected samples of water and sand from Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Katrina Key and Dauphin Island. To our eyes, the samples appeared normal, until we took them to a local lab to be tested.
Water and sand along Alabama's coast should contain no more than five parts per million of oil or petroleum, according to Bob Naman, an analytical chemist. But, the samples we collected tested much higher.
From 16 ppm to 221 ppm, our results are concerning. Even more disturbing is what happened to a sample collected from the Dauphin Island Marina near oil containment boom.
Yes, it exploded. Adding a common organic solvent to separate the oil from the water caused the water sample to explode on contact. Whether from poisonous levels of methane or through the over-use of the dispersant Corexit, serious questions should be raised but mostly aren't. Water shouldn't just "explode"*.
And children are still playing and swimming in this toxic soup.
(* Rapid release of gases in a sealed container, or offgassing, created too much pressure for the glass container.)
Glad someone's staying on top of it ..
Pity it's not our democratically elected government.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
These elected officials are more concern about their reelection run than what will happen to our economy , jobs and environment..
They are afraid to take a stand for what in right..
They want the corporate funds to keep rolling in not to p.ss off republicans and independent voters.
Republicans have created the Biggest destruction to this nation that we have ever seen , and the democrats are afraid of stepping on toes and making people made to correct it..
We have become a third world country. And soon we are going to be begging other countries for their left overs.
Al Franklin seems to be the only Senator which really gives a d...
I guess Emanuel will cut Al Franklin off from DNC donations and supports in his reelection bid..
None
As if.
I'm a lot like Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes: Why?
Stealing BP's oil and all without written permission. Something similar happened to me decades ago. I was working in a building where insulation was falling off the overhead pipes. I got it tested and it turned out to be asbestos. When I went to my employer about this he said the building owner wanted to have me fired for stealing a piece of his building.
What was shown in the video was a blown-out separatory funnel. In performing a standard hydrocarbon in water analysis using a sep funnel, it is pretty easy to burst one; it can even happen on the distilled water analytical blanks.
Here is how it's done:
You put the aqueous sample into the sep funnel through the wide end while holding it nozzle down. You then add the solvent, cap it, turn it nozzle up and IMMEDIATELY open the valve to vent it. The reason is, the solvent is usually methylene chloride, which is extremely volatile. As soon as you seal the funnel, pressure begins to build in the headspace above the sample. A LOT of pressure. You have maybe one or two seconds to vent that pressure or the thing will likely burst and you will wear the contents. If there is a weakness in the wall, even a tiny scratch or microcrack, you often cannot vent it fast enough.
I was GOOD at it, and had two of them let go on me over the years. One was distilled water.
This is NOT to say that 200+ ppm hydrocarbons in sea water isn't terrible; it is. But in all things, accuracy is our friend.
I noticed that too. While the assumption is that the glass broke because of the amounts of oil/methane, that isn't necessarily the case. It might have been just a bad funnel. That sample is meaningless.
Dave V,
When you say, "... [I] had two of them let go on me over the years" how many years experience are you referring to? You make it sound common place yet undercut the "commonness" of the occurrences by stating that you've only had TWO explode on you in your years of experience.
Now, can you prove that it was the the funnel in this report that was flawed, as you claim may be the case? I'm not refuting your experience, I'm just pointing out the lack of common place incidence rate as per your experience. If it happened once a month, over your years of experience, then I would agree that it is a common place incident. But even your experience shows that it is not all that common, and when it does happen, the most likely cause may be due to poor or compromised glass. However, the funnel used is not available for inspection so speculation reins, on BOTH sides.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
As I said, I had very good technique. In the lab where I worked, everyone had at least such an experience. Consider that there are probably HUNDREDS of Gulf samples being shaken in sep funnels every day, and the odds of it being a consequence of the procedure for it to happen one time are not exactly break-the-bank long. You want actual info on the water quality? Look at the results from the ones that didn't wind up on the floor.
I'm glad to see another chemist has responded to this story. When using a separatory funnel, it's always necessary to vent it to prevent pressure from building up regardless of what the sample is, because the solvents used in extraction are so volatile. As contaminated as the samples here were, the vapor pressure from them would have been negligible, and it's also worth noting that the stems on many of the funnels in the video are broken. I've done extractions as a regular part of a past job, and while I never broke a funnel from pressure, the stopper was forced out a few times. Having a funnel pop, leaving me covered in solvent was always on my mind while doing extractions.
Between videos of all of the animals killed, square miles of ocean covered with oil, and the thuggish tactics BP have used to prevent coverage of this disaster, there's plenty of evidence against BP. This story of "exploding" water adds nothing to the argument, and the headline "SHOCK:..." comes across as sensational on the level of Fox "News". I hope the reporter of this story will look into separatory funnel technique, talk to some lab techs, and that this story will be withdrawn.
be subjected to the same warning of buildup/explosion?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Chemist here.
I've done thousands of sep funnel extractions. I'm not sure what Dave is extracting, but I can say from my own personal experience (standard organic extractions, nothing fancy)that you have much longer than a second to release the pressure. I've never had a sep funnel break in less than second, or even 3 seconds for that matter.
In fact, if you merely turn the funnel upside down and don't shake it, you can probably maintain the integrity of the funnel for over a minute.
The supposition of the Chemist (i.e. methanol absorbed in water) in this video is pretty much spot on with what I was thinking when I read the headline.
Retired chemist. Done more sep funnel extractions than I want to think about. It could have been methane (I'm assuming you meant methane not methanol). It could have been a small crack in the glassware after it was washed. It may be that the extraction broke up the associated hydrocarbon-dispersant molecules and created a strong entropic effect that caused expansion or contraction. I don't think a broken sep funnel is newsworthy but then a lot of the stuff on cable news is not worthy.
The solvents used in extractions, like methylene chloride mentioned above and hexane, are very volatile and depending on the analyst, how vigorously the sample is shaken, how long before it is vented, and the condition of the glassware, this kind of thing could just as easily happen with a distilled water blank. On the other hand, the sample could just as easily be 250 ppm gasoline and not break one in a hundred samples.
Gulf sand, the latest weapon in fight against terrorism and illegal brown people.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
the new exploding sand and water technology.
There is some important information left out of this story. Oil is toxic at 11 PPM. Corexit is toxic at 2.61 PPM. The Corexit is doing its job. It's keeping oil off the surface and out of sight of the beaches. But the oil and the detergent is doing its job at the expense of Marine Life.
Let's not forget that these samples were taken near the coast. I wonder what the ppms would be as you get nearer the rig?
Goodbye, marine life! It was fun.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/348127010...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the water needs to be from the gulf of mexico, but the design is sound
Good one.
Why is it that the newspeople seem the first to be testing the water and sand? Children are playing there the beaches seem to be in use. It would seem that BP or the government at some level would be interested in the parts per million also. Kind of reminds me of the situation with the air quality and rescue workers in NYC after 911.
I was a bit skeptical when I saw that sensationalist headline myself. It sounds like a bit of correlation doesn't equal causation was sacrificed for local news ratings.
As Dave V. said, though, the bigger issue is the amount of shit that BP released into the gulf.
Dave V. and Taarak: do you have science backgrounds?
B.Sc. Marine Biology, M.S. Environmental Science, almost a PhD in Environmental Science before I grew tired of academia and bailed before defending.
to the term "containment boom," dunnit?
"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder." - Well-Manicured Man
regulators and BP. Those guys REALLY know how to do terrorism.
"1 : to burst forth with sudden violence or noise from internal energy: as a : to undergo a rapid chemical or nuclear reaction with the production of noise, heat, and violent expansion of gases b : to burst violently as a result of pressure from within"
Unless of course the pedanterists want to debate "violently."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exp...
I'm a lot like Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes: Why?
Sounds like whenever I have a Tex-Mex lunch.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
How do you test PPM of oil in wet sand? It seems that there can be a lot of variation, unless you remove all the water first, and it's not clear that this was done. Also, I agree, the flask explosion by itself is meaningless. Still, this report should help keep pressure on BP and right now that is a good thing.
You can weigh it wet, dry a subsample, weigh it dry and calculate it. You can express it as per wet or dry wt as you see fit, but dry is more commonly used. Any good report will document materials and methods.
The article says the procedure to test the water is to add a solvent that separates oil and water. I would have to think that the same procedure would be used on the sand.
It seems to me that the concentration of oil in the sand will only go up, as the water from the gulf is continually filtered by the sand.
Are they out there doing their own tests?
Aw c'mon.
It's summer time!
Important People are on vacation!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
from BP. After Tony gets done yachting, maybe BP will get back to EPA.
B.P. Buying Up Gulf Marine Scientist
.. and it's on Fox & Friends ..
Perhaps BP will unite us afterall!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
hard to believe any scientist would do this .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
Since no one cares a hoot what I say, I'll gladly take their money to mouth their story. And since I was a tewwible scientist, I will work relatively cheap.
A “scientist” is just someone who employs the scientific method (and not always correctly). They are no more infallible or any more moral than anybody else.
working on the denier front that would likely be more than happy to shill for BP.
Marine scientist to be some of the most eco friendly people in the world .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
Context? Are these numbers good/bad/horrific? I doubt that this would be good if it were fresh water. This can't be good for the critters that live in the sea (duh).
I wouldn't want to swim in it, but I do change my own oil and I'm pretty sure I get pure oil on my hands, which I wash immediately after (feels icky!). I hope those kids wash up before they eat after their day at the beach.
Mom/Dad better rinse the swim trunks before putting them in the dryer (Boom!)
Here's a decent article with context and links to studies:
http://scienceblogs.com/speakeasyscience/2010...
An "[LSU] study found that Louisiana crude had an LC50 of 4250 ppm for the warm-water loving killifish." (LC50 means 50% of the test subjects died)
"'Dispersed' oil had an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal"
joy :/
There are many factors which have to be taken into account when calculating LC50, including salinity, temperature, PH – and species. While big fish have a higher tolerance for dispersed oil, plankton is more susceptible. The fish rely on the plankton, and once they are gone, so too will the fish be.
The above link is good. This one is more technical and focuses on plankton:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jell/aurandfinal09/
Keep in mind that the solubility of crude versus crude/dispersant mix is different. It looks like total hydrocarbon concentration does not exceed 10 ppm whereas oil/dispersant mixes have about 3x greater solubility (water accomodate fractions in their lingo). Anyway this is what I'm getting from the articles. I'm assuming they had to extrapolate the data to come up with LC50 values since you can't get oil into water at anywhere near 4250 ppm.
So if the question is which does greater environmental harm, dispersed oil in subsurface water moving with currents or floating oil globules washing into marshes it comes down to ???????? at this point. We don't know and the Gulf is one big lab.
It also looks like oil that has been weathered will lose the lighter fractions (C12 or less) and there will be a lot of polyaromatic hydrocarbons left (PAH). I've read articles on PAH (think benzene rings annealed together) and they are some of the most carcinogenic chemicals you can find.
So many unreported oil spills has made it a complete mess that I would never swim in, let alone vacation there. Wait til they start seeing the long term effects from this mess. I used to go to the gulf 20 years ago and saw oil on the beaches then. Nothing has changed except people are more aware of the mess. In order to clean up the gulf you would have to stop drilling entirely. No chance of that happening with the fools and idiots who believe oil company lies.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
the Gulf on the West Coast of Florida (south of Sarasota) for the last 23 years and the beaches, sand and water have been pristine. Furthermore, I live on the Southeast Coast of Florida and prefer the West coast for vacations.
I get your point about drilling, oil companies, etc but I certainly wouldn't describe the Gulf over the past 20 years as you do.
"Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying..."-------Roger Waters, "Comfortably Numb"
Agreed. I've seen more oil on the SE Atlantic side from tankers than I have on the Gulf from oil rigs (at least up to now). Red-Tide and algae blooms are a different story.
RepublicOn only beaches....
Lew
Fighting the Christian American Taliban daily.
Maybe we can collect enough of this sh*t and drop it on our terrorist enemies...oh, right, they're not in Afghanistan, they're right here, occupying the executive offices of every oil corporation and their Republican politicians toadies.
Democratic Party progressive, Vietnam veteran and proud Union member for 41 years
should be charged with child abuse.
the unnamed "common organic solvent" that flashed off and likely was. If the concentration in the water sample of organic chemicals (from the spill) were high enough to generate an explosion then the sample would have had to have been mostly hydrocarbon and almost no water. Corexit consists mostly of "common organic solvents".
Hasa Diga Eebowai
these numbers really don't mean very much. I can't believe all the commenting scientists didn't say as much. There are no references to tests previously. Although the numbers may indicate high amounts of oil in the sand and water that apparently are much higher than what would be deemed toxic levels, without previous numbers in the same places this is bad science. If this was used in court it would be thrown out in an instant. There needs to be stronger evidence! Big issue out of this testing is that the government is allowing such toxicity without so much as a warning to the public. As with the alcohol vs. marijuana debate, the evidence is skewed towards pure greed, not science.
and the Committee On Exploding Gulf Water will tell him whose ass he can go and kick. Kickass!
Comments are closed on this entry