Investigating the potential risks of sour gas sweetening agents to aquatic invertebrate species
- aswitzer17
- Jan 28
- 2 min read
Despite recent shifts in public ideology, fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy market. Here in Canada we are no exception, being a top 10 global producer of both crude oil and natural gas. With the current political climate, there is increased interest and reliance on these Canadian resources.
However, these resources require refining before they are ready for use. For example, about ⅓ of the natural gas reserves in Alberta are considered sour (containing high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide (H2S)). Hydrogen sulphide is corrosive and highly toxic to humans when inhaled, and therefore must be removed to protect infrastructure and increase product safety. One of the ways in which it can be removed is via the Sulfinol process. This process involves the use of a physical (sulfolane) and chemical (diisopropanolamine) solvent to capture and remove the unwanted contaminants.
Due to spills and improper handling and disposal, sulfolane and diisopropanolamine have contaminated several sites across Canada, posing a potential threat to exposed ecosystems. Unfortunately, studies investigating the toxicity of these two chemicals are limited, and few use species native to Canadian ecosystems.
This study aims to address this knowledge gap and produce new data that is essential for risk assessors to accurately characterize and quantify the potential impact of sulfolane and diisopropanolamine on ecological receptors.
Test Organisms
One of the chosen test organisms is mayfly nymphs (Hexagenia rigida and Hexagenia limbata). The second chosen test organism is the freshwater worm Tubifex tubifex. Both of these organisms are sediment-dwelling and perform important roles in nutrient cycling, sediment mixing, and serve as important prey. While T. tubifex are considered generally tolerant of pollution, Hexagenia spp. are often considered more sensitive. In addition, each are widely present in ecosystems across Canada.
Mayfly testing uses endpoints including survival and mobility, while worm testing uses adult survival and reproduction (cocoon and juvenile counts) as its endpoints. The effects of each individual chemical as well as mixtures will be explored.
Comments