Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

P. D. Capel

Publications and source records attributed to P. D. Capel.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2008

National, holistic, watershed-scale approach to understand the sources, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals

This paper is an introduction to the following series of papers that report on in-depth investigations that have been conducted at five agricultural study areas across the United States in order to gain insights into how environmental processes and agricultural practices interact to determine the transport and fate of agricultural chemicals in the environment. These are the first study areas in an ongoing national study. The study areas were selected, based on the combination of cropping patterns and hydrologic setting, as representative of nationally important agricultural settings to form a basis for extrapolation to unstudied areas. The holistic, watershed-scale study design that involves multiple environmental compartments and that employs both field observations and simulation modeling is presented. This paper introduces the overall study design and presents an overview of the hydrology of the five study areas. Copyright ?? 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. All rights reserved.

Journal of Environmental Quality↗
USGS2006

A laboratory and field evaluation of a portable immunoassay test for triazine herbicides in environmental water samples

The usefulness and sensitivity, of a portable immunoassay test for the semiquantitative field screening of water samples was evaluated by means of laboratory and field studies. Laboratory results indicated that the tests were useful for the determination of atrazine concentrations of 0.1 to 1.5 μg/L. At a concentration of 1 μg/L, the relative standard deviation in the difference between the regression line and the actual result was about 40 percent. The immunoassay was less sensitive and produced similar errors for other triazine herbicides. After standardization, the test results were relatively insensitive to ionic content and variations in pH (range, 4 to 10), mildly sensitive to temperature changes, and quite sensitive to the timing of the final incubation step, variances in timing can be a significant source of error. Almost all of the immunoassays predicted a higher atrazine concentration in water samples when compared to results of gas chromatography. If these tests are used as a semiquantitative screening tool, this tendency for overprediction does not diminish the tests' usefulness. Generally, the tests seem to be a valuable method for screening water samples for triazine herbicides.

International Journal of Environmental Analytical ↗
USGS2001

The behaviour of 39 pesticides in surface waters as a function of scale

A portion of applied pesticides runs off agricultural fields and is transported through surface waters. In this study, the behaviour of 39 pesticides is examined as a function of scale across 14 orders of magnitude from the field to the ocean. Data on pesticide loads in streams from two US Geological Survey programs were combined with literature data from field and watershed studies. The annual load as percent of use (LAPU) was quantified for each of the fields and watersheds and was used as the normalization factor across watersheds and compounds. The in-stream losses of each pesticide were estimated for a model stream with a 15 day travel time (similar in characteristics to the upper Mississippi River). These estimated in-stream losses agreed well with the observed changes in apparent LAPU values as a function of watershed area. In general, herbicides applied to the soil surface had the greatest LAPU values and minimal in-stream losses. Soil-incorporated herbicides had smaller LAPU values and substantial in-stream losses. Insecticides generally had LAPU values similar to the incorporated herbicides, but had more variation in their in-stream losses. On the basis of the LAPU values of the 39 pesticides as a function of watershed area, a generalized conceptual model of the movement of pesticides from the field to the ocean is suggested. The importance of considering both field runoff and in-stream losses is discussed in relation to interpreting monitoring data and making regulatory decisions.

Hydrological Processes↗
USGS2001

Effect of scale on the behavior of atrazine in surface waters

Field runoff is an important transport mechanism by which agricultural pesticides, including atrazine, move into the hydrologic environment. Atrazine is chosen because it is widely used, is transported in runoff relatively easily, is widely observed in surface waters, and has relatively little loss in the stream network. Data on runoff of atrazine from experimental plot and field studies is combined with annual estimates of load in numerous streams and rivers, resulting in a data set with 408 observations that span 14 orders of magnitude in area. The load as a percent of use (LAPU) on an annual basis is the parameter that is compared among the studies. There is no difference in the mean or range of LAPU values for areas from the size of experimental field plots (???0.000023 ha) and small watersheds (<100 000 ha). The relatively invariant LAPU value observed across a large range of watershed areas implies that the characteristics of atrazine itself (application method and chemical properties) are important in determining the extent of runoff. The variable influences on the extent of runoff from individual watershed characteristics and weather events are superimposed on the relatively invariant LAPU value observed across the range of watershed areas. The results from this study establish the direct relevance for agricultural field plot studies to watershed studies across the full range of scale.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2000

Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban streams

Little is known of the occurrence of pesticides in urban streams compared to streams draining agricultural areas. Water samples from eight urban streams from across the United States were analyzed for 75 pesticides and seven transformation products. For six of the eight urban streams, paired agricultural streams were used for comparisons. The herbicides detected most frequently in the urban streams were prometon, simazine, atrazine, tebuthiuron, and metolachlor, and the insecticides detected most frequently were diazinon, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, and malathion. In contrast to similar-sized agricultural streams, total insecticide concentrations commonly exceeded total herbicide concentrations in these urban streams. In general, the temporal concentration patterns in the urban streams were consistent with the characteristics of the local growing season. The insecticides carbaryl and diazinon exceeded criteria for the protection of aquatic life in many of the urban streams in the spring and summer. When the country as a whole is considered, the estimated mass of herbicides contributed by urban areas to streams is dwarfed by the estimated contribution from agricultural areas, but for insecticides, contributions from urban and agricultural areas may be similar. The results of this study suggest that urban areas should not be overlooked when assessing sources and monitoring the occurrence of pesticides in surface waters.

Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,↗
USGS1999

Occurrence and behavior of the herbicide Prometon in the hydrologic system

Prometon, a triazine herbicide, is used for total vegetation control on industrial sites, on noncrop areas on farms, in and under asphalt, and to a small extent by homeowners. Prometon has often been detected in surface water and groundwater in studies reported in the literature, but its presence is seldom discussed, partly because of its infrequent inclusion on lists of herbicides used in either agricultural or urban areas. In recent large-scale studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, prometon has been the most commonly detected herbicide in surface water and groundwater in urban areas and the third and fourth most commonly detected herbicide in groundwater and surface water, respectively, in agricultural areas. It also has been detected in rain. The frequent detection of prometon in the environment is discussed in relation to its use practices and predicted environmental behavior. Prometon is compared to atrazine, a structurally similar agricultural triazine herbicide that is one of the most studied and most commonly detected herbicides found in the hydrologic environment. The environmental data presented here demonstrate the wide-scale occurrence of prometon in all components of the hydrologic system, particularly in the surface water and groundwater of urban areas.Prometon, a triazine herbicide, is used for total vegetation control on industrial sites, on noncrop areas on farms, in and under asphalt, and to a small extent by homeowners. Prometon has often been detected in surface water and groundwater in studies reported in the literature, but its presence is seldom discussed, partly because of its infrequent inclusion on lists of herbicides used in either agricultural or urban areas. In recent large-scale studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, prometon has been the most commonly detected herbicide in surface water and groundwater in urban areas and the third and fourth most commonly detected herbicide in groundwater and surface water, respectively, in agricultural areas. It also has been detected in rain. The frequent detection of prometon in the environment is discussed in relation to its use practices and predicted environmental behavior. Prometon is compared to atrazine, a structurally similar agricultural triazine herbicide that is one of the most studied and most commonly detected herbicides found in the hydrologic environment. The environmental data presented here demonstrate the wide-scale occurrence of prometon in all components of the hydrologic system, particularly in the surface water and groundwater of urban areas.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS1997

Hydrogeologic and water-quality data used to evaluate the effects of focused recharge on ground-water quality near Princeton, Minnesota, 1991-95

This study was part of the Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) Program, a multi-scale, inter-agency initiative to evaluate the effects of agricultural systems on water quality in the midwest corn belt. The research was part of the U.S. Geological Survey Toxics Substances Hydrology Program. The research area was located in the Anoka Sand Plain about 5 kilometers southwest of Princeton, Minnesota. This report presents temperature, precipitation, soil-moisture, water-quality, and other data collected during 1991-95 to evaluate the effects of focused recharge on ground-water quality at the Princeton MSEA.

Minnesota↗
USGS1997

Water-quality and hydrogeologic data used to evaluate the effects of farming systems on ground-water quality at the Management Systems Evaluation Area near Princeton, Minnesota, 1991-95

The Minnesota Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) project was part of a multi-scale, inter-agency initiative to evaluate the effects of agricultural management systems on water quality in the midwest corn belt. The research area was located in the Anoka Sand Plain about 5 kilometers southwest of Princeton, Minnesota. The ground-water-quality monitoring network within and immediately surrounding the research area consisted of 73 observation wells and 25 multiport wells. The primary objectives of the ground-water monitoring program at the Minnesota MSEA were to: (1) determine the effects of three farming systems on ground-water quality, and (2) understand the processes and factors affecting the loading, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in ground water at the site. This report presents well construction, geologic, water-level, chemical application, water-quality, and quality-assurance data used to evaluate the effects of farming systems on ground-water quality during 1991-95.

Minnesota↗
USGS1996

Evaluation of selected information on splitting devices for water samples

Four devices for splitting water samples into representative aliquots are used by the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources Division. A thorough evaluation of these devices (14-liter churn, 8-liter churn, plastic cone, and Teflon cone) encompasses a wide variety of concerns, based on both chemical and physical considerations. This report surveys the existing data (as of April 1994) on cleaning efficiency and splitting capability of these devices and presents the data in a systematic framework for evaluation. From the existing data, some of these concerns are adequately or partially addressed, but the majority of concerns could not be addressed because of the lack of data. In general, the existing cleaning and transport protocols are adequate at the milligram per liter level, but the adequacy is largely unknown for trace elements and organic chemicals at lower concen- trations. The existing data indicate that better results are obtained when the splitters are cleaned in the laboratory rather than in the field. Two conclusions that can be reached on the splitting capability of solids are that more work must be done with all four devices to characterize and quantify their limitations and range of usefulness, and that the 14-liter churn (and by association, the 8-liter churn) is not useful in obtaining representative splits of sand-sized particles.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1995

A chemodynamic approach for estimating losses of target organic chemicals from water during sample holding time

Minimizing the loss of target organic chemicals from environmental water samples between the time of sample collection and isolation is important to the integrity of an investigation. During this sample holding time, there is a potential for analyte loss through volatilization from the water to the headspace, sorption to the walls and cap of the sample bottle; and transformation through biotic and/or abiotic reactions. This paper presents a chemodynamic-based, generalized approach to estimate the most probable loss processes for individual target organic chemicals. The basic premise is that the investigator must know which loss process(es) are important for a particular analyte, based on its chemodynamic properties, when choosing the appropriate method(s) to prevent loss.

Chemosphere↗