Bursian S J, Alexander C R, Cacela D, Cunningham F L, Dean K M, Dorr B S, Ellis C K, Godard-Codding C A, Guglielmo C G, Hanson-Dorr K C, Harr K E, Healy K A, Hooper M J, Horak K E, Isanhart J P, Kennedy L V, Link J E, Maggini I, Moye J K, Perez C R, Pritsos C A, Shriner S A, Trust K A, Tuttle P L
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2017 Aug;142:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.03.046. Epub 2017 Apr 1.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 establishes liability for injuries to natural resources because of the release or threat of release of oil. Assessment of injury to natural resources resulting from an oil spill and development and implementation of a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of natural resources to compensate for those injuries is accomplished through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. The NRDA process began within a week of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which occurred on April 20, 2010. During the spill, more than 8500 dead and impaired birds representing at least 93 avian species were collected. In addition, there were more than 3500 birds observed to be visibly oiled. While information in the literature at the time helped to identify some of the effects of oil on birds, it was not sufficient to fully characterize the nature and extent of the injuries to the thousands of live oiled birds, or to quantify those injuries in terms of effects on bird viability. As a result, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed various assessment activities to inform NRDA injury determination and quantification analyses associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including avian toxicity studies. The goal of these studies was to evaluate the effects of oral exposure to 1-20ml of artificially weathered Mississippi Canyon 252 oil kg bw day from one to 28 days or one to five applications of oil to 20% of the bird's surface area. It was thought that these exposure levels would not result in immediate or short-term mortality but might result in physiological effects that ultimately could affect avian survival, reproduction and health. These studies included oral dosing studies, an external dosing study, metabolic and flight performance studies and field-based flight studies. Results of these studies indicated changes in hematologic endpoints including formation of Heinz bodies and changes in cell counts. There were also effects on multiple organ systems, cardiac function and oxidative status. External oiling affected flight patterns and time spent during flight tasks indicating that migration may be affected by short-term repeated exposure to oil. Feather damage also resulted in increased heat loss and energetic demands. The papers in this special issue indicate that the combined effects of oil toxicity and feather effects in avian species, even in the case of relatively light oiling, can significantly affect the overall health of birds.
1990年的《石油污染法》规定了因石油泄漏或泄漏威胁而对自然资源造成损害的责任。通过自然资源损害评估(NRDA)程序来评估石油泄漏对自然资源造成的损害,并制定和实施一项恢复、修复、替代或获取自然资源的计划,以补偿这些损害。NRDA程序在2010年4月20日发生的深水地平线石油泄漏事件后的一周内启动。在泄漏期间,收集了8500多只死亡和受损的鸟类,代表至少93种鸟类。此外,还观察到3500多只鸟类明显被油污覆盖。虽然当时文献中的信息有助于确定石油对鸟类的一些影响,但不足以全面描述数千只活体油污鸟类所受伤害的性质和程度,也无法根据对鸟类生存能力的影响来量化这些伤害。因此,美国鱼类和野生动物管理局提出了各种评估活动,为与深水地平线石油泄漏相关的NRDA伤害确定和量化分析提供信息,包括鸟类毒性研究。这些研究的目的是评估鸟类口服1 - 20毫升人工风化的密西西比峡谷252号油/千克体重·天,持续1至28天,或对鸟类表面积的20%进行1至5次涂油处理的影响。人们认为这些暴露水平不会导致立即或短期死亡,但可能会产生生理影响,最终可能影响鸟类的生存、繁殖和健康。这些研究包括口服给药研究、外部给药研究、代谢和飞行性能研究以及基于野外的飞行研究。这些研究结果表明血液学指标发生了变化,包括海因茨小体的形成和细胞计数的改变。对多个器官系统、心脏功能和氧化状态也有影响。外部涂油影响了飞行模式和飞行任务所花费的时间,这表明迁徙可能会受到短期反复接触石油的影响。羽毛受损还导致热量损失增加和能量需求增加。本期特刊中的论文表明,即使在油污相对较轻的情况下,石油毒性和羽毛效应在鸟类物种中的综合影响也会显著影响鸟类的整体健康。