Oil uptake via marine snow: Effects on blue mussels (Mytilus sp.)

•Results suggest that aggregates could moderate the effects of oil exposure on blue mussels.•Clearance rate, DNA damage, and condition index all showed more negative effects of exposure to oil which is not associated with aggregates.•We propose that the nutritional benefit of marine snow aggregates counteracts some of the negative effects of oil exposure. Accidental oil spills into the ocean can lead to downward transport and settling of oil onto the seafloor as part of marine snow, as seen during the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico. The arctic and subarctic regions may favor conditions leading to this benthic oil deposition, prompting questions about the potential impacts on benthic communities. This study investigated the effects of oil-contaminated marine snow uptake on the blue mussel (Mytilus sp.). We exposed mussels for four days to 1) oil-contaminated marine snow (MOS treatment), or to 2) chemically-enhanced water-accommodated fraction (CEWAF) of oil plus unaggregated food particles (CEWAF treatment). Both oil treatments received the same nominal concentration of oil and food. Two controls were included: 1) Clean seawater plus unaggregated food (agg-free control) and 2) clean seawater plus marine snow (marine snow control). After the exposure, mussels were allowed to recover for ten days under clean, running seawater. Samples were taken right before and after the exposure period, and after the recovery phase for the following endpoints: distribution (partitioning) of oil compounds between seawater and MOS, and between seawater and mussel tissue; DNA damage (assessed via the comet assay); clearance rate; and condition index [tissue dry weight (g) divided by shell length (mm)]. Some discernable patterns were found in the partitioning of oil compounds between seawater and MOS. However, these patterns did not translate to any significant differences in the partitioning of oil compounds into mussel tissue between the two oil treatments. DNA damage did not exceed background levels (10% tail DNA or less; to be expected in healthy, viable cells) at any sampling time point, but significantly higher DNA damage was observed in CEWAF-T compared to MOS-T mussels after the recovery phase. After the exposure, a significant difference emerged in the clearance rate between the CEWAF treatment and the agg-free control, but not between the MOS treatment and the marine snow control. All mussels except those from the CEWAF treatment exhibited an