Deep sea habitats in the chemical warfare dumping areas of the Baltic Sea

Czub, Michał; Kotwicki, Lech; Lang, Thomas; Sanderson, Hans; Klusek, Z.; Grabowski, Miłosz; Szubska, Marta; Jakacki, Jaromir; Andrzejewski, Jan; Rak, Daniel; Bełdowski, Jacek

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.165

Cited by 40 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the lack of constraint surrounding the extent and quantity of munitions disposed in the marine environment, direct inspection is often required in order to evaluate the risk. Site-specific or limited regional efforts using geophysical techniques have been successful in mapping the local distribution of munitions on the seafloor (10-1,000 m scale) (Decarlo et al, 2007;CIRIA, 2016;Czub et al, 2018). Optical imagery also produces high resolution images and can accurately identify munitions objects, but is quite limited in terms of its spatial scope (10 s of meters scale) (Shihavuddin et al, 2014).…”

Section: Global Distribution and Local Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optical imagery also produces high resolution images and can accurately identify munitions objects, but is quite limited in terms of its spatial scope (10 s of meters scale) (Shihavuddin et al, 2014). Sidescan sonar can provide particularly striking high-resolution images of submerged munitions (Frenz, 2014;Czub et al, 2018), but uncertainties in e.g., the layback (wire length, angle), limit the absolute accuracy with which objects can be geo-referenced FIGURE 3 | Global distribution of documented marine sites with munitions present (includes conventional weapons, chemical weapons, and UXO). Letters refer to literature references: a, MEDEA (1997) and Bohaty (2009);b, MEDEA (1997);c, Ampleman et al (2004); d, Missiaen and Henriet (2002); e, Plunkett (2003); f, Amato et al (2006a,b); g, Bearden (2007); h, Nixon (2009); I, HELCOM (1995); j, Brankowitz (1989); k, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (2017); l, Bull (2005a,b); m, US ARMY (2001); n, Godschalk and Ferreira (1998);o, Thiel (2003); p, Francis and Alama (2011); q, Royal New Zealand Navy (2015); r, Obhodas et al (2010) and Valkovic et al (2009);s, Nadim et al (2008) and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (2017); t, Landmine Action (2005); u, Porter et al (2011);v, UNEP/MAP (2009).…”

Section: Global Distribution and Local Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spread, Behavior, and Ecosystem Consequences of Conventional Munitions Compounds in Coastal Marine Waters

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal marine environments are contaminated globally with a vast quantity of unexploded ordnance and munitions from intentional disposal. These munitions contain organic explosive compounds as well as a variety of metals, and represent point sources of chemical pollution to marine waters. Most underwater munitions originate from World Wars at the beginning of the twentieth century, and metal munitions housings have been impacted by extensive corrosion over the course of the following decades. As a result, the risk of munitions-related contaminant release to the water column is increasing. The behavior of munitions compounds is well-characterized in terrestrial systems and groundwater, but is only poorly understood in marine systems. Organic explosive compounds, primarily nitroaromatics and nitramines, can be degraded or transformed by a variety of biotic and abiotic mechanisms. These reaction products exhibit a range in biogeochemical characteristics such as sorption by particles and sediments, and variable environmental behavior as a result. The reaction products often exhibit increased toxicity to biological receptors and geochemical controls like sorption can limit this exposure. Environmental samples typically show low concentrations of munitions compounds in water and sediments (on the order of ng/L and µg/kg, respectively), and ecological risk appears generally low. Nonetheless, recent work demonstrates the possibility of sub-lethal genetic and metabolic effects. This review evaluates the state of knowledge on the occurrence, fate, and effect of munition-related chemical contaminants in the marine environment. There remain a number of knowledge gaps that limit our understanding of munitions-related contaminant spread and effect, and the need for additional work is made all the more urgent by increasing risk of release to the environment.

show abstract

Section: Global Distribution and Local Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Global Distribution and Local Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spread, Behavior, and Ecosystem Consequences of Conventional Munitions Compounds in Coastal Marine Waters

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, chemical warfare agents are destroyed via chemical neutralization processes or high-temperature incineration. Before the international treaty "Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter", signed in 1972 in London by a majority of nations, millions of tons of munitions have been disposed throughout the world's oceans determining an environmental risk for its natural resources Czub et al 2018;Edwards and Bełdowski 2016;Szubska 2018).…”

Section: Arsenic In Chemical Weaponsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic intoxication: general aspects and chelating agents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arsenic (As) is widely used in the modern industry, especially in the production of pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and semiconductors. The sources of As such as contaminated water, air, soil, but also food, can cause serious human diseases. The complex mechanism of As toxicity in the human body is associated with the generation of free radicals and the induction of oxidative damage in the cell. One effective strategy in reducing the toxic effects of As is the usage of chelating agents, which provide the formation of inert chelator-metal complexes with their further excretion from the body. This review discusses different aspects of the use of metal chelators, alone or in combination, in the treatment of As poisoning. Consideration is given to the therapeutic effect of thiol chelators such as meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid, sodium 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonate, 2,3-dimercaptopropanol, penicillamine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and other recent agents against As toxicity. The review also considers the possible role of flavonoids, trace elements, and herbal drugs as promising natural chelating and detoxifying agents.

show abstract

“…27,139,143 Restoring landscapes affected by war often involves massive clean-up efforts, ranging from the removal of landmines and unexploded ordnance 144 to the remediation of sites contaminated during munitions production, testing, and disposal. 145,146 Military installations account for more than 10% of "Superfund" environmental clean-up sites in the United States, 147 for example, a figure that swells to nearly 70% if industrial sites related to military activities are included. 148 Battlefield damage may also continue affecting biodiversity long after the cessation of hostilities.…”

Section: Postwar Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…140,141 r Persistent contamination and habitat degradation from activities carried out during preparations and wars. 146,149 r Increased extraction of natural resources to fund reconstruction and recovery. 152,153 r Persistent deforestation and elevated hunting levels near long-term camps for refugees and internally displaced populations.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective

Hanson

2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The activities involved in preparing for, executing, and recovering from armed conflict are globally pervasive and consequential, with significant impacts on natural systems. Effects on biodiversity are predominantly negative, produced by direct and indirect battlefield impacts, as well as the general breakdown of social, economic, and governance systems during wartime. Certain conservation opportunities do occur, however, particularly on lands set aside for training exercises, buffer zones, and peace parks. Here, the relationship between armed conflict and biodiversity is reviewed using the temporal framework of warfare ecology, which defines warfare as an ongoing process of three overlapping stages: preparations, war (armed conflict), and postwar activities. Several themes emerge from recent studies, including a heightened awareness of biodiversity conservation on military lands, the potential for scientific and conservation engagement to mitigate negative biodiversity impacts in war zones, and the importance of the postwar period for incorporating biodiversity priorities into reconstruction and recovery efforts. Research limitations and knowledge gaps are also discussed.

show abstract

Deep sea habitats in the chemical warfare dumping areas of the Baltic Sea

Cited by 40 publications

References 35 publications

Spread, Behavior, and Ecosystem Consequences of Conventional Munitions Compounds in Coastal Marine Waters

Spread, Behavior, and Ecosystem Consequences of Conventional Munitions Compounds in Coastal Marine Waters

Arsenic intoxication: general aspects and chelating agents

Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About