Table 4 The main methods and expected outcomes of WP3: oil impacts on biota using biomarkers and ecological risks assessment

Effect biomarkers in blue mussels from a North Atlantic transect and seasonal samples from Baltic Sea

Latitudinal and seasonal biomarker baselines and variability for exposure assessment

Leiniö and Lehtonen [51]

Passive sampling of oil components in the study area and extract testing in vitro

Environmental relevance of oil contamination

Posada-Ureta et al. [52]

Investigation and storage of specimen samples

Build-up of an environmental specimen bank for oil spill impact diagnosis and prognosis

Villares et al. [53]

Garmendia et al. [54]

Effects of WAF of pure and dispersed oil on mussels, copepods, zebrafish and endemic sticklebacks using biomarkers and gene expression

Understand how molecular modes of action cause apical effects

Counihan [55]

Hansen et al. [56]

Knag and Taugbøl [57]

Van der Ost et al. [58]

Turja et al. [59]

Zebrafish embryo and larvae toxicity test at different salinities and with WAFs prepared at different temperatures

Adapt the assay to Baltic Sea conditions, also as a pre-requisite for the biosensing in WP1

Perrichon et al. [60]

de Soysa et al. [61]

Measurement of the effect of WAFs of different oil types by means of a large bioassay battery

Derive toxicity profiles as fingerprints and relate to differences in oil composition, complement chemical analysis

Singer et al. [62]

Biomarker measurement in field-exposed mussels and snails (WP4)

Effects of in situ burning on aquatic invertebrates and environmental assessment of this method for oil spill response

Turja et al. [63]

Marigómez et al. [28, 29]

Risk analysis oil spills and dispersants use by means of the PETROTOX model

Refine the risk assessment of oil spills and responses using the data produced in WP3 and feed the result into WP4

Redman et al. [16]