Comparing conventional and green fracturing fluids by chemical characterisation and effect-based screening

Ann-Hélène Faber*, Andrea M. Brunner, Milou M.L. Dingemans, Kirsten A. Baken, Stefan A.E. Kools, Paul P. Schot, Pim de Voogt, Annemarie P. van Wezel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

There is public and scientific concern about air, soil and water contamination and possible adverse environmental and human health effects as a result of hydraulic fracturing activities. The use of greener chemicals in fracturing fluid aims to mitigate these effects. This study compares fracturing fluids marketed as either ‘conventional’ or ‘green’, as assessed by their chemical composition and their toxicity in bioassays. Chemical composition was analysed via non-target screening using liquid chromatography - high resolution mass spectrometry, while toxicity was evaluated by the Ames fluctuation test to assess mutagenicity and CALUX reporter gene assays to determine specific toxicity. Overall, the results do not indicate that the ‘green’ fluids are less harmful than the ‘conventional’ ones. First, there is no clear indication that the selected green fluids contain chemicals present at lower concentrations than the selected conventional fluids. Second, the predicted environmental fate of the identified compounds does not seem to be clearly distinct between the ‘green’ and ‘conventional’ fluids, based on the available data for the top five chemicals based on signal intensity that were tentatively identified. Furthermore, Ames fluctuation test results indicate that the green fluids have a similar genotoxic potential than the conventional fluids. Results of the CALUX reporter gene assays add to the evidence that there is no clear difference between the green and conventional fluids. These results do not support the claim that currently available and tested green-labeled fracturing fluids are environmentally more friendly alternatives to conventional fracturing fluids.
Original languageEnglish
Article number148727
Pages (from-to)1-12
JournalScience of the Total Environment
Volume794
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Nov 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This project was funded in part by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the water utilities Brabant Water, Oasen and Waterleiding Maatschappij Limburg (via the research program 'Shale Gas and Water', wich has the project number 859.14.001. Additional funding for this research article was provided by Energie Beheer Nederland (EBN).

Funding Information:
This project was funded in part by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the water utilities Brabant Water, Oasen and Waterleiding Maatschappij Limburg (via the research program ' Shale Gas and Water ', wich has the project number 859.14.001 . Additional funding for this research article was provided by Energie Beheer Nederland (EBN).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors

Keywords

  • Ames test
  • CALUX test
  • Conventional
  • Fracturing fluids
  • Green
  • HRMS
  • Non-target screening

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing conventional and green fracturing fluids by chemical characterisation and effect-based screening'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this