Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The dispersants Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 were extensively used during the response to the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010. In addition to the monitoring programs established by federal and state governments, local communities also conducted studies to determine if chemical constituents from these dispersants impacted nearshore and inland waters. One community (the City of Orange Beach, Alabama) collected water samples between September, 2010 and January, 2011, and found the dispersant-related chemicals propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol, and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate at nearshore and inland water sampling sites. In this paper, we examine their dataset in an attempt to discern the origin of these chemicals. Our assessment indicates that these compounds are unlikely to be present as a result of the use of Corexit dispersants; rather, they are likely related to point and non-point source stormwater discharge.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.06.031 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!