The Ecosystem Baseline for Particle Flux in the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Response management and damage assessment during and after environmental disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill require an ecological baseline and a solid understanding of the main drivers of the ecosystem. During the DWH event, a large fraction of the spilled oil was transported to depth via sinking marine snow, a routing of spilled oil unexpected to emergency response planners. Because baseline knowledge of particle export in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and how it varies spatially and temporally was limited, we conducted a detailed assessment of the potential drivers of deep (~1400 m depth) particle fluxes during 2012–2016 using sediment traps at three contrasting sites in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: near the DWH site, at an active natural oil seep site, and at a site considered typical for background conditions. The DWH site, located ~70 km from the Mississippi River Delta, showed flux patterns that were strongly linked to the Mississippi nitrogen discharge and an annual subsequent surface bloom. Fluxes carried clear signals of combustion products, which likely originated from pyrogenic sources that were transported offshore via the Mississippi plume. The seep and reference sites were more strongly influenced by the open Gulf of Mexico, did not show a clear seasonal flux pattern, and their overall sedimentation rates were lower than those at the DWH site. At the seep site, based on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon data, we observed indications of three different pathways for “natural” oiled-snow sedimentation: scavenging by sinking particles at depth, weathering at the surface before incorporation into sinking particles, and entry into the food web and subsequent sinking in form of detritus. Overall, sedimentation rates at the three sites were markedly different in quality and quantity owing to varying degrees of riverine and oceanic influences, including natural seepage and contamination by combustion products

The Ecosystem Baseline For Particle Flux In the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Response management and damage assessment during and after environmental disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill require an ecological baseline and a solid understanding of the main drivers of the ecosystem. During the DWH event, a large fraction of the spilled oil was transported to depth via sinking marine snow, a routing of spilled oil unexpected to emergency response planners. Because baseline knowledge of particle export in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and how it varies spatially and temporally was limited, we conducted a detailed assessment of the potential drivers of deep (~1400 m depth) particle fluxes during 2012–2016 using sediment traps at three contrasting sites in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: near the DWH site, at an active natural oil seep site, and at a site considered typical for background conditions. The DWH site, located ~70 km from the Mississippi River Delta, showed flux patterns that were strongly linked to the Mississippi nitrogen discharge and an annual subsequent surface bloom. Fluxes carried clear signals of combustion products, which likely originated from pyrogenic sources that were transported offshore via the Mississippi plume. The seep and reference sites were more strongly influenced by the open Gulf of Mexico, did not show a clear seasonal flux pattern, and their overall sedimentation rates were lower than those at the DWH site. At the seep site, based on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon data, we observed indications of three different pathways for “natural” oiled-snow sedimentation: scavenging by sinking particles at depth, weathering at the surface before incorporation into sinking particles, and entry into the food web and subsequent sinking in form of detritus. Overall, sedimentation rates at the three sites were markedly different in quality and quantity owing to varying degrees of riverine and oceanic influences, including natural seepage and contamination by combustion products

Outcomes of a Community Engagement and Information Gathering Program to Support Telephone-Based COVID-19 Contact Tracing: Descriptive Analysis

BackgroundContact tracing is an important public health tool for curbing the spread of infectious diseases. Effective and efficient contact tracing involves the rapid identification of individuals with infection and their exposed contacts and ensuring their isolation or quarantine, respectively. Manual contact tracing via telephone call and digital proximity app technology have been key strategies in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. However, many people are not reached for COVID-19 contact tracing due to missing telephone numbers or nonresponse to telephone calls. The New York City COVID-19 Trace program augmented the efforts of telephone-based contact tracers with information gatherers (IGs) to search and obtain telephone numbers or residential addresses, and community engagement specialists (CESs) made home visits to individuals that were not contacted via telephone calls. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the contribution of information gathering and home visits to the yields of COVID-19 contact tracing in New York City. MethodsIGs looked for phone numbers or addresses when records were missing phone numbers to locate case-patients or contacts. CESs made home visits to case-patients and contacts with no phone numbers or those who were not reached by telephone-based tracers. Contact tracing management software was used to triage and queue assignments for the telephone-based tracers, IGs, and CESs. We measured the outcomes of contact tracing–related tasks performed by the IGs and CESs from July 2020 to June 2021. ResultsOf 659,484 cases and 861,566 contact records in the Trace system, 28% (185,485) of cases and 35% (303,550) of contacts were referred to IGs. IGs obtained new phone numbers for 33% (61,804) of case-patients and 11% (31,951) of contacts; 50% (31,019) of the case-patients and 46% (14,604) of the contacts with new phone numbers completed interviews; 25% (167,815) of case-patients and 8% (72,437) of contacts were referred to CESs. CESs attempted 80% (132,781) of case and 69% (49,846) of contact investigations, of which 47% (62,733) and 50% (25,015) respectively, completed interviews. An additional 12,192 contacts were identified following IG investigations and 13,507 following CES interventions. ConclusionsGathering new or missing locating information and making home visits increased the number of case-patients and contacts interviewed for contact tracing and resulted in additional contacts. When possible, contact tracing programs should add information gathering and home visiting strategies to increase COVID-19 contact tracing coverage and yields as well as promote equity in the delivery of this public health intervention