Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Baltic Proper (Sweden).




  • Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1983 in one area of rocky coastline in the northern Baltic Proper, Sweden (Ganning et al. 1983) found that high pressure hot water shore cleaning technique following an oil spill tended to increase crude oil content of blue mussels Mytilus edulis. Results were not statistically tested. After three days, petroleum hydrocarbon content (crude oil) appeared to have increased in mussels from 40 µg/g to 533–657 µg/g, and decreased by only approximately 20–45% (to 290–530 µg/g) after two weeks. These levels tended to be higher than in mussels from an adjacent uncleaned contaminated site (43 µg/g) and mussels from a non-contaminated site (30 µg/g). In summer 1980, crude oil was experimentally spilled on the shore and cleaned. The “cleaned” sea area directly off the shore was fenced with booms, and sorption agents used on the sea surface. Blue mussels (>30 mm in length) collected from a non-contaminated site were placed in 11 net bags (12/bag). A week before cleaning, nine bags were placed within the fenced area, one bag at an uncleaned contaminated site, and one bag at the non-contaminated site, all at 0.5 m depth. One fenced bag was retrieved before cleaning. Three days after cleaning, the bag from the uncleaned contaminated site was retrieved, as well as six bags from the cleaned area. After two weeks, all remaining bags were retrieved. The crude oil content of mussels was measured.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation - Published 2020

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust