Geology topics

Eliza L. Gross

Publications and source records attributed to Eliza L. Gross.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Sediment response to stream restoration in an agricultural watershed

Despite widespread implementation of stream restoration there is limited research of its effectiveness in impaired agricultural settings. To quantify the effects of stream restoration on sediment load, we investigated erosion and deposition along 9 stream reach sites (4 restored, 4 unrestored, and 1 downstream) in Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, United States - a representative agricultural subbasin of the Chesapeake Bay. These stream restoration projects had the goal of reducing sediment load primarily by installing log structures and regrading streambanks in order to stabilize streambanks and reconnect floodplains. Floodplain and streambank sediment fluxes were quantified over a 3-year period through repeated measurement of clay pads and pins and measurement of sediment bulk density. Uncrewed aerial imagery was collected at 3 of the sites, then processed using structure from motion (SfM) to create high-resolution digital elevation models. Terrain analysis enabled three-dimensional understanding of the generality of the specific field flux measurement locations to the larger stream reach. Restored sites on average had deposition on streambanks compared to streambank erosion along unrestored sites, and approximately two times greater floodplain deposition than unrestored sites. Overall, restored stream had an average seven-fold increase in the net balance (sum of streambank and floodplain) of sediment flux, a 81.2 kg/m/yr increase in retention, compared to unrestored stream. The measured larger streambed particle size distribution (D 50 ) in restored streams also suggests additional improvements to instream habitat quality. Terrain analysis confirmed that the field-based measurements were representative of the larger reach. These results indicate that stream restoration in agricultural watersheds using less-engineered designs can reduce sediment loading and improve stream habitat and health goals.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2022

Compilation and evaluation of data used to identify groundwater sources under the direct influence of surface water in Pennsylvania

A study was conducted to compile and evaluate data used to identify groundwater sources that are under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) in Pennsylvania. In the early 1990s, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) implemented the Surface Water Identification Protocol (SWIP) for the identification of GUDI sources. Since the establishment of the SWIP, PADEP has classified more than 500 individual sources across Pennsylvania as GUDI, but Pennsylvania’s complex geology and physiography provide a challenge for a uniform method of GUDI determination. Components used in this study to compile and evaluate data associated with GUDI determination include: (1) a preliminary review of file information for 43 public water-supply wells, (2) quality control and addition of data to PADEP’s database for public water-supply systems to prepare data for analysis, and (3) exploratory evaluation of existing GUDI sources in the database with respect to hydrogeologic and source-construction characteristics that are currently utilized in the assessment methodology. Case files for 43 wells from PADEP’s Northcentral and Southcentral regions were reviewed to: (1) provide a better understanding of how the SWIP was applied in practice, (2) verify and compile missing data, and (3) find additional attributes not previously available that might explain a well’s categorization as GUDI. Review of file information showed that the SWIP outlined in PADEP technical guidance was usually followed, but for some sources, the GUDI determination was more complex and could not be easily summarized. Data compiled for study analyses provided by PADEP include source data derived from public water-supply system case files, a source-information database for public water-supply systems, and Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA) results and associated water-quality data for public water-supply system groundwater sources. Data from the Pennsylvania Drinking Water Information System (PADWIS) , which is PADEP’s database for public water-supply systems, were also used for this study. The PADWIS database originally included data for 12,147 groundwater sources (11,812 groundwater sources not under the direct influence of surface water (non-GUDI) wells and 335 GUDI wells). A subset (4,018 wells consisting of 3,842 non-GUDI wells and 175 GUDI wells) of the PADWIS database was created for an analysis and includes only community wells evaluated in accordance with the SWIP. MPA results for 631 community and noncommunity wells were compiled, along with associated water-quality data (alkalinity, chloride, Escherichia coli , fecal coliform, nitrate, pH, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate, total coliform, total dissolved solids, total residue, and turbidity) populated from the PADEP Bureau of Laboratories Sample Information System. Data compiled from sources other than PADEP include spatial data, both naturogenic (for example, average precipitation or distance to closest hydrologic feature) and anthropogenic (for example, percentage of developed or agricultural land cover within a specific vicinity of a public water-supply system well) data representing spatially derived variables. Comparison among wells in the PADWIS dataset subset using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test showed that GUDI wells had significantly older median construction years, shallower depths, and static water levels closer to the land surface than non-GUDI wells and that carbonate aquifers had the highest percentages of wells designated as GUDI (12 percent; 57 wells). Further comparison of wells in the PADWIS database subset using the Spearman’s rho monotonic correlation test illustrated that public water-supply wells designated as GUDI largely occur in unconfined aquifers and have high average yield and shallow static water levels. Assessment of the MPA database subset using the Kruskal-Wallis test showed wells with MPA total risk-factor scores that exceeded zero had older median construction years and shallower casing depths than wells with MPA total risk-factor scores of zero and that carbonate aquifers had the highest percentages of wells with MPA total risk-factor scores exceeding zero (30 percent; 63 wells). Spearman’s rho correlations showed that wells completed in aquifers with depths to major water-bearing zones closer to the land-surface had higher total risk-factor scores resulting from MPA samples. Based on the results of the analyses described in this report, broad conclusions can be drawn regarding site-specific well characteristics as well as anthropogenic and naturogenic factors that could be responsible for a well being designated as GUDI, but the accuracy of these results is dependent on the quality of the data being analyzed. Ultimately, study results serve as an added resource for initial desktop screening of wells to determine if additional site-specific investigation is warranted and underscore the need for field evaluation.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2020

Arsenic and uranium occurrence in private wells in Connecticut, 2013–18—A spatially weighted and bedrock geology assessment

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Public Health, conducted a study to determine the presence of arsenic and uranium in private drinking water wells in Connecticut. Samples were collected during 2013–18 from wells completed in 115 geologic units, with 2,433 samples analyzed for arsenic and 2,191 samples analyzed for uranium. The study concluded four major findings. In a spatially weighted analysis of groundwater samples collected from more than 2,000 private wells in bedrock aquifers in Connecticut, 3.9 percent of collected samples contained arsenic concentrations greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L), and 4.7 percent of collected samples contained uranium concentrations greater than the EPA MCL of 30 µg/L. Of the 2,433 water samples collected and analyzed from bedrock aquifers in Connecticut, 4.2 percent (102) contained arsenic concentrations at greater than 10 µg/L, and of the 2,191 water samples collected and analyzed from bedrock aquifers in Connecticut, 5.4 percent (118) contained uranium concentrations greater than 30 µg/L. Uranium concentrations greater than or equal to 1 µg/L are relatively ubiquitous across the State of Connecticut, with these concentrations present in 44.9 percent of the State, according to spatially weighted statewide-scale proportion analysis. Of the 115 geologic units studied, 44 had at least one sample with arsenic or uranium concentrations that exceeded the respective constituent’s EPA MCL.

Connecticut↗

USGS2017

Evaluation of radon occurrence in groundwater from 16 geologic units in Pennsylvania, 1986–2015, with application to potential radon exposure from groundwater and indoor air

Results from 1,041 groundwater samples collected during 1986‒2015 from 16 geologic units in Pennsylvania, associated with 25 or more groundwater samples with concentrations of radon-222, were evaluated in an effort to identify variations in radon-222 activities or concentrations and to classify potential radon-222 exposure from groundwater and indoor air. Radon-222 is hereafter referred to as “radon.” Radon concentrations in groundwater greater than or equal to the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for public-water supply systems of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) were present in about 87 percent of the water samples, whereas concentrations greater than or equal to the proposed alternative MCL (AMCL) for public water-supply systems of 4,000 pCi/L were present in 14 percent. The highest radon concentrations were measured in groundwater from the schists, gneisses, and quartzites of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. In this study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, groundwater samples were aggregated among 16 geologic units in Pennsylvania to identify units with high median radon concentrations in groundwater. Graphical plots and statistical tests were used to determine variations in radon concentrations in groundwater and indoor air. Median radon concentrations in groundwater samples and median radon concentrations in indoor air samples within the 16 geologic units were classified according to proposed and recommended regulatory limits to explore potential radon exposure from groundwater and indoor air. All of the geologic units, except for the Allegheny (Pa) and Glenshaw (Pcg) Formations in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, had median radon concentrations greater than the proposed EPA MCL of 300 pCi/L, and the Peters Creek Schist (Xpc), which is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, had a median radon concentration greater than the EPA proposed AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L. Median concentrations of radon in groundwater and indoor air were determined to differ significantly among the geologic units (Kruskal-Wallis test, significance probability, p<0.001), and Tukey’s test indicated that radon concentrations in groundwater and indoor air in the Peters Creek Schist (Xpc) were significantly higher than those in the other units. Also, the Peters Creek Schist (Xpc) was determined to be the area with highest potential of radon exposure from groundwater and indoor air and one of two units with the highest percentage of population assumed to be using domestic self-supplied water (81 percent), which puts the population at greater potential of exposure to radon from groundwater. Potential radon exposure determined from classification of geologic units by median radon concentrations in groundwater and indoor air according to proposed and recommended regulatory limits is useful for drawing general conclusions about the presence, variation, and potential radon exposure in specific geologic units, but the associated data and maps have limitations. The aggregated indoor air radon data have spatial accuracy limitations owing to imprecision of geocoded test locations. In addition, the associated data describing geologic units and the public water supplier’s service areas have spatial and interpretation accuracy limitations. As a result, data and maps associated with this report are not recommended for use in predicting individual concentrations at specific sites nor for use as a decision-making tool for property owners to decide whether to test for radon concentrations at specific locations. Instead, the data and maps are meant to promote awareness regarding potential radon exposure in Pennsylvania and to point out data gaps that exist throughout the State.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2017

Groundwater quality for 75 domestic wells in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, 2014

Groundwater is a major source of drinking water in Lycoming County and adjacent counties in north-central and northeastern Pennsylvania, which are largely forested and rural and are currently undergoing development for hydrocarbon gases. Water-quality data are needed for assessing the natural characteristics of the groundwater resource and the potential effects from energy and mineral extraction, timber harvesting, agriculture, sewage and septic systems, and other human influences. This report, prepared in cooperation with Lycoming County, presents analytical data for groundwater samples from 75 domestic wells sampled throughout Lycoming County in June, July, and August 2014. The samples were collected using existing pumps and plumbing prior to any treatment and analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics, including nutrients, major ions, metals and trace elements, volatile organic compounds, gross-alpha particle and gross beta-particle activity, uranium, and dissolved gases, including methane and radon-222. Results indicate groundwater quality generally met most drinking-water standards, but that some samples exceeded primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for arsenic, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, pH, bacteria, or radon-222. Arsenic concentrations were higher than the MCL of 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in 9 of the 75 (12 percent) well-water samples, with concentrations as high as 23.6 μg/L; arsenic concentrations were higher than the health advisory level (HAL) of 2 μg/L in 23 samples (31 percent). Total iron concentrations exceeded the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 300 μg/L in 20 of the 75 samples. Total manganese concentrations exceeded the SMCL of 50 μg/L in 20 samples and the HAL of 300 μg/L in 2 of those samples. Three samples had chloride concentrations that exceeded the SMCL of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L); two of those samples exceeded the SMCL of 500 mg/L for TDS. The pH ranged from 5.3 to 9.15 and did not meet the SMCL range of 6.5 to 8.5 in 22 samples, with 17 samples having a pH less than 6.5 and 8 samples having pH greater than 8.5. Generally, the samples that had elevated TDS, chloride, or arsenic concentrations had high pH. Total coliform bacteria were detected in 39 of 75 samples (52 percent), with Escherichia coli detected in 10 of those 39 samples. Radon-222 activities ranged from non-detect to 7,420 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), with a median of 863 pCi/L, and exceeded the proposed drinking-water standard of 300 pCi/L in 50 (67 percent) of the 75 samples; radon-222 activities were higher than the alternative proposed standard of 4,000 pCi/L in 3 samples. Water from 15 of 75 (20 percent) wells had concentrations of methane greater than the reporting level of 0.01 mg/L; detectable methane concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 16.8 mg/L. Two samples had methane concentrations (13.1 and 16.8 mg/L) exceeding the action level of 7 mg/L. Low levels of ethane (up to 0.12 mg/L) were present in the five samples with the highest methane concentrations (near or above 1 mg/L) that were analyzed for hydrocarbon compounds and isotopic composition. The isotopic composition of methane in four of these groundwater samples, from the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations and the Hamilton Group, have sample carbon isotopic ratio delta values (carbon-13/carbon-12) ranging from –42.36 to –36.08 parts per thousand (‰) and hydrogen isotopic ratio delta values (deuterium/protium) ranging from –212.0 to –188.4 ‰, which are consistent with the isotopic compositions reported for mud-gas logging samples from these geologic units and a thermogenic source of the methane. However, the isotopic composition and ratios of methane to ethane in a fifth sample indicate the methane in that sample may be of microbial origin that subsequently underwent oxidation. The fifth sample had the highest concentration of methane, 16.8 mg/L, with an carbon isotopic ratio delta values of -50.59 ‰ and a hydrogen isotopic ratio delta values of -209.7 ‰. The six well-water samples with the highest methane concentrations also had among the highest pH values (8.25 to 9.15) and elevated concentrations of sodium, lithium, boron, fluoride, arsenic, and bromide. Relatively elevated concentrations of some other constituents, such as barium, strontium, and chloride, commonly were present in, but not limited to, those well-water samples with elevated methane. Three of the six groundwater samples with the highest methane concentrations had chloride/bromide ratios that indicate mixing with a small amount of brine (0.02 percent or less) similar in composition to those reported at undetermined depth below the freshwater aquifer and for gas and oil well brines in Pennsylvania. The sample with the highest methane concentration and most other samples with low methane concentrations (less than about 1 mg/L) have chloride/bromide ratios that indicate predominantly anthropogenic sources of chloride, such as road-deicing salt, septic systems, and (or) animal waste. Brines that are naturally present may originate from deeper parts of the aquifer system, while anthropogenic sources are more likely to affect shallow groundwater because they occur on or near the land-surface. The spatial distribution of groundwater compositions generally indicate that (1) uplands along the western border of Lycoming County usually have dilute, slightly acidic oxygenated, calcium-bicarbonate type waters; (2) intermediate altitudes or areas of carbonate bedrock usually have water of near neutral pH, with highest amounts of hardness (calcium and magnesium); (3) stream valleys, low elevations where groundwater may be discharging, and deep wells in uplands usually have water with pH values greater than 8 and highest arsenic, sodium, lithium, bromide concentrations. Geochemical modeling indicated that for samples with elevated pH, sodium, lithium, bromide, and alkalinity, the water chemistry could have resulted by dissolution of calcite (calcium carbonate) combined with cation-exchange and mixing with a small amount of brine. Through cation-exchange reactions between water and bedrock, which are equivalent to processes in a water softener, calcium ions released by calcite dissolution are exchanged for sodium ions on clay minerals. Thus, the assessment of groundwater quality in Lycoming County indicates groundwater is generally of good quality, but various parts of Lycoming County can have groundwater with low to moderate concentrations of methane and other constituents that appear in naturally present brine and produced waters from gas and oil wells at high concentrations."

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2013

Arsenic concentrations, related environmental factors, and the predicted probability of elevated arsenic in groundwater in Pennsylvania

Analytical results for arsenic in water samples from 5,023 wells obtained during 1969–2007 across Pennsylvania were compiled and related to other associated groundwater-quality and environmental factors and used to predict the probability of elevated arsenic concentrations, defined as greater than or equal to 4.0 micrograms per liter (µg/L), in groundwater. Arsenic concentrations of 4.0 µg/L or greater (elevated concentrations) were detected in 18 percent of samples across Pennsylvania; 8 percent of samples had concentrations that equaled or exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking-water maximum contaminant level of 10.0 µg/L. The highest arsenic concentration was 490.0 µg/L. Comparison of arsenic concentrations in Pennsylvania groundwater by physiographic province indicates that the Central Lowland physiographic province had the highest median arsenic concentration (4.5 µg/L) and the highest percentage of sample records with arsenic concentrations greater than or equal to 4.0 µg/L (59 percent) and greater than or equal to 10.0 µg/L (43 percent). Evaluation of four major aquifer types (carbonate, crystalline, siliciclastic, and surficial) in Pennsylvania showed that all types had median arsenic concentrations less than 4.0 µg/L, and the highest arsenic concentration (490.0 µg/L) was in a siliciclastic aquifer. The siliciclastic and surficial aquifers had the highest percentage of sample records with arsenic concentrations greater than or equal to 4.0 µg/L and 10.0 µg/L. Elevated arsenic concentrations were associated with low pH (less than or equal to 4.0), high pH (greater than or equal to 8.0), or reducing conditions. For waters classified as anoxic (405 samples), 20 percent of sampled wells contained water with elevated concentrations of arsenic; for waters classified as oxic (1,530 samples) only 10 percent of sampled wells contained water with elevated arsenic concentrations. Nevertheless, regardless of the reduction-oxidation classification, 54 percent of samples with low pH (13 of 24 samples) and 25 percent of samples with high pH (57 of 230 samples) had elevated arsenic concentrations. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater in Pennsylvania were correlated with concentrations of several chemical constituents or properties, including (1) constituents associated with redox processes, (2) constituents that may have a similar origin or be mobilized under similar chemical conditions as arsenic, and (3) anions or oxyanions that have similar sorption behavior or compete for sorption sites on iron oxides. Logistic regression models were created to predict and map the probability of elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater statewide in Pennsylvania and in three intrastate regions to further improve predictions for those three regions (glacial aquifer system, Gettysburg Basin, Newark Basin). Although the Pennsylvania and regional predictive models retained some different variables, they have common characteristics that can be grouped by (1) geologic and soils variables describing arsenic sources and mobilizers, (2) geochemical variables describing the geochemical environment of the groundwater, and (3) locally specific variables that are unique to each of the three regions studied and not applicable to statewide analysis. Maps of Pennsylvania and the three intrastate regions were produced that illustrate that areas most at risk are those with geology and soils capable of functioning as an arsenic source or mobilizer and geochemical groundwater conditions able to facilitate redox reactions. The models have limitations because they may not characterize areas that have localized controls on arsenic mobility. The probability maps associated with this report are intended for regional-scale use and may not be accurate for use at the field scale or when considering individual wells.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2013

Distribution of indoor radon concentrations in Pennsylvania, 1990-2007

Results from 548,507 indoor radon tests from a database compiled by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection, Radon Division, are evaluated in this report in an effort to determine areas where concentrations of radon are highest. Indoor radon concentrations were aggregated according to geologic unit and hydrogeologic setting for spatial analysis. Indoor radon concentrations greater than or equal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) action level of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) were observed for 39 percent of the test results; the highest concentration was 1,866.4 pCi/L. When analyzed according to Pennsylvania’s geologic units, 93 of the 188 (49.5 percent) geologic units with indoor radon concentrations had median concentrations greater than the USEPA action level of 4 pCi/L; most of these geologic units are located in the eastern part of the State and include metamorphic rocks, limestones, sandstones, shales, and glacial deposits. When analyzed according to Pennsylvania’s hydrogeologic settings, 5 of the 20 (25 percent) settings had median indoor radon concentrations greater than the USEPA action level of 4 pCi/L; these settings are located mostly in the south-central part of the State. Median indoor radon concentrations aggregated according to geologic units and hydrogeologic settings are useful for drawing general conclusions about the occurrence of indoor radon in specific geologic units and hydrogeologic settings, but the associated data and maps have limitations. The aggregated indoor radon data have testing and spatial accuracy limitations due to lack of available information regarding testing conditions and the imprecision of geocoded test locations. In addition, the associated data describing geologic units and hydrogeologic settings have spatial and interpretation accuracy limitations, which are a result of using statewide data to define conditions at test locations and geologic data that represent a broad interpretation of geologic units across the State. As a result, indoor air radon concentration distributions are not proposed for use in predicting individual concentrations at specific sites nor for use as a decision-making tool for property owners to decide whether to test for indoor radon concentrations at specific property locations.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2012

Quality of major ion and total dissolved solids data from groundwater sampled by the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 1992–2010

Proper interpretation of water quality requires consideration of the effects that contamination bias and sampling variability might have on measured analyte concentrations. The effect of contamination bias and sampling variability on major ion and total dissolved solids data in water samples collected in 48 of the 52 National Water-Quality Assessment Program study units from 1992–2010 is discussed in this report. Contamination bias and sampling variability can occur as a result of sample collection, processing, shipping, and analysis. Contamination bias can adversely affect interpretation of measured concentrations in comparison to standards or criteria. Sampling variability can help determine the reproducibility of an individual measurement or whether two measurements are different. Field blank samples help determine the frequency and magnitude of contamination bias, and replicate samples help determine the sampling variability (error) of measured analyte concentrations. Quality control data were evaluated for calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, fluoride, silica, and total dissolved solids. A 99-percent upper confidence limit is calculated from field blanks to assess the potential for contamination bias. For magnesium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, and fluoride, potential contamination in more than 95 percent of environmental samples is less than or equal to the common maximum reporting level. Contamination bias has little effect on measured concentrations greater than 4.74 mg/L (milligrams per liter) for calcium, 14.98 mg/L for silica, 4.9 mg/L for sodium, and 120 mg/L for total dissolved solids. Estimates of sampling variability are calculated for high and low ranges of concentration for major ions and total dissolved solids. Examples showing the calculation of confidence intervals and how to determine whether measured differences between two water samples are significant are presented.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2011

Factors affecting groundwater quality in the Valley and Ridge aquifers, eastern United States, 1993-2002

Chemical and microbiological analyses of water from 230 wells and 35 springs in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, sampled between 1993 and 2002, indicated that bedrock type (carbonate or siliciclastic rock) and land use were dominant factors influencing groundwater quality across a region extending from northwestern Georgia to New Jersey. The analyses included naturally occurring compounds (major mineral ions and radon) and anthropogenic contaminants [pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)], and contaminants, such as nitrate and bacteria, which commonly increase as a result of human activities. Natural factors, such as topographic position and the mineral composition of underlying geology, act to produce basic physical and geochemical conditions in groundwater that are reflected in physical properties, such as pH, temperature, specific conductance, and alkalinity, and in chemical concentrations of dissolved oxygen, radon, and major mineral ions. Anthropogenic contaminants were most commonly found in water from wells and springs in carbonate-rock aquifers. Nitrate concentrations exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant levels in 12 percent of samples, most of which were from carbonate-rock aquifers. Escherichia coli (E. coli), pesticide, and VOC detection frequencies were significantly higher in samples from sites in carbonate-rock aquifers. Naturally occurring elements, such as radon, iron, and manganese, were found in higher concentrations in siliciclastic-rock aquifers. Radon levels exceeded the proposed maximum contaminant level of 300 picocuries per liter in 74 percent of the samples, which were evenly distributed between carbonate- and siliciclastic-rock aquifers. The land use in areas surrounding wells and springs was another significant explanatory variable for the occurrence of anthropogenic compounds. Nitrate and pesticide concentrations were highest in samples collected from sites in agricultural areas and lowest in samples collected from sites in undeveloped areas. Volatile organic compounds were detected most frequently and in highest concentrations in samples from sites in urban areas, and least frequently in agricultural and undeveloped areas. No volatile organic compound concentrations and concentrations from only one pesticide, dieldrin, exceeded human-health benchmarks.

Alabama;Georgia;Tennessee;North Carolina;Virginia;↗