Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20125045

Prioritizing pesticide compounds for analytical methods development

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a periodic need to re-evaluate pesticide compounds in terms of priorities for inclusion in monitoring and studies and, thus, must also assess the current analytical capabilities for pesticide detection. To meet this need, a strategy has been developed to prioritize pesticides and degradates for analytical methods development. Screening procedures were developed to separately prioritize pesticide compounds in water and sediment. The procedures evaluate pesticide compounds in existing USGS analytical methods for water and sediment and compounds for which recent agricultural-use information was available. Measured occurrence (detection frequency and concentrations) in water and sediment, predicted concentrations in water and predicted likelihood of occurrence in sediment, potential toxicity to aquatic life or humans, and priorities of other agencies or organizations, regulatory or otherwise, were considered. Several existing strategies for prioritizing chemicals for various purposes were reviewed, including those that identify and prioritize persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic compounds, and those that determine candidates for future regulation of drinking-water contaminants. The systematic procedures developed and used in this study rely on concepts common to many previously established strategies. The evaluation of pesticide compounds resulted in the classification of compounds into three groups: Tier 1 for high priority compounds, Tier 2 for moderate priority compounds, and Tier 3 for low priority compounds. For water, a total of 247 pesticide compounds were classified as Tier 1 and, thus, are high priority for inclusion in analytical methods for monitoring and studies. Of these, about three-quarters are included in some USGS analytical method; however, many of these compounds are included on research methods that are expensive and for which there are few data on environmental samples. The remaining quarter of Tier 1 compounds are high priority as new analytes. The objective for analytical methods development is to design an integrated analytical strategy that includes as many of the Tier 1 pesticide compounds as possible in a relatively few, cost-effective methods. More than 60 percent of the Tier 1 compounds are high priority because they are anticipated to be present at concentrations approaching levels that could be of concern to human health or aquatic life in surface water or groundwater. An additional 17 percent of Tier 1 compounds were frequently detected in monitoring studies, but either were not measured at levels potentially relevant to humans or aquatic organisms, or do not have benchmarks available with which to compare concentrations. The remaining 21 percent are pesticide degradates that were included because their parent pesticides were in Tier 1. Tier 1 pesticide compounds for water span all major pesticide use groups and a diverse range of chemical classes, with herbicides and their degradates composing half of compounds. Many of the high priority pesticide compounds also are in several national regulatory programs for water, including those that are regulated in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act and those that are on the latest Contaminant Candidate List. For sediment, a total of 175 pesticide compounds were classified as Tier 1 and, thus, are high priority for inclusion in analytical methods available for monitoring and studies. More than 60 percent of these compounds are included in some USGS analytical method; however, some are spread across several research methods that are expensive to perform, and monitoring data are not extensive for many compounds. The remaining Tier 1 compounds for sediment are high priority as new analytes. The objective for analytical methods development for sediment is to enhance an existing analytical method that currently includes nearly half of the pesticide compounds in Tier 1 by adding as many additional Tier 1 compounds as are analytically compatible. About 35 percent of the Tier 1 compounds for sediment are high priority on the basis of measured occurrence. A total of 74 compounds, or 42 percent, are high priority on the basis of predicted likelihood of occurrence according to physical-chemical properties, and either have potential toxicity to aquatic life, high pesticide useage, or both. The remaining 22 percent of Tier 1 pesticide compounds were either degradates of Tier 1 parent compounds or included for other reasons. As with water, the Tier 1 pesticide compounds for sediment are distributed across the major pesticide-use groups; insecticides and their degradates are the largest fraction, making up 45 percent of Tier 1. In contrast to water, organochlorines, at 17 percent, are the largest chemical class for Tier 1 in sediment, which is to be expected because there is continued widespread detection in sediments of persistent organochlorine pesticides and their degradates at concentrations high enough for potential effects on aquatic life. Compared to water, there are fewer available benchmarks with which to compare contaminant concentrations in sediment, but a total of 19 Tier 1 compounds have at least one sediment benchmark or screening value for aquatic organisms. Of the 175 compounds in Tier 1, 77 percent have high aquatic-life toxicity, as defined for this process. This evaluation of pesticides and degradates resulted in two lists of compounds that are priorities for USGS analytical methods development, one for water and one for sediment. These lists will be used as the basis for redesigning and enhancing USGS analytical capabilities for pesticides in order to capture as many high-priority pesticide compounds as possible using an economically feasible approach.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Julia E. Norman, Kathryn Kuivila, Lisa H. Nowell. 2012. Prioritizing pesticide compounds for analytical methods development. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20125045

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗

Streamflow assessment of Birch Creek, southern boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Pondera County, northwestern Montana—Synoptic and continuous streamflow measurements through 2022

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Blackfeet Water Department, performed this study to assist water-resource managers in understanding and quantifying irrigation diversions, instream flows, and the spatial and temporal streamflow dynamics of Birch Creek in northwestern Montana. Birch Creek forms the southernmost boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and is highly valued culturally as an aquatic life and wildlife resource and as a principal source of water for irrigation. The study area included Birch Creek from Swift Dam to 53.3 miles downstream just above its confluence with the Two Medicine River. The study period was calendar year 2022, but selected historical information was also included in the study. Birch Creek streamflow originates through releases from Swift Reservoir, with the largest releases typically occurring during the irrigation season (May–October) to primarily meet the needs of downstream irrigators. This study included the compilation and collection of (1) continuous streamflow measured at streamgages installed for this study, (2) instantaneous streamflow measurements made during four synoptic events, and (3) reported daily values of Swift Reservoir outflow and irrigation diversions. Continuous streamflow data were available from two U.S. Geological Survey streamgages: Birch Creek below Heart Butte Road, near Heart Butte, Montana (upper streamgage; station 06094900), at river mile 12.9 and Birch Creek at Bullhead Bridge near Valier, Mont. (lower streamgage; station 06098120), at river mile 53.3. The upper streamgage (station 06094900) was primarily affected by the regulated releases from Swift Dam with daily mean streamflow typically slightly higher than the reported Swift Reservoir outflows. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 9.87 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) (November 18, 2022) to 640 ft 3 /s (June 22, 2022) during September 16, 2021–December 31, 2022. The mean annual streamflow was 122 ft 3 /s in water year 2022 (a water year is the 12-month period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends), about 13 percent greater than the mean annual reported Swift Reservoir outflows. The lower streamgage (station 06098120) was downstream from all major tributaries and diversions within the Birch Creek drainage basin. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 6.02 ft 3 /s (September 8, 2022) to 95.0 ft 3 /s (June 5, 2021) during August 26, 2020–December 31, 2022. Mean annual streamflow was 27.8 ft 3 /s for water year 2022. Flows at the lower streamgage (station 06098120) were typically lower than at the upper streamgage (station 06094900) from late April to early October, whereas flows from early October to late spring were similar to or greater than those at the upper streamgage. The upper streamgage had a total streamflow volume of 87,960 acre-feet (acre-ft) for water year 2022, whereas the lower streamgage had a total streamflow of 20,357 acre-ft. A net volume of about 67,603 acre-ft was removed from Birch Creek through diversions, losses to groundwater, and evapotranspiration along that reach during water year 2022. Most of the changes in main-stem streamflow could be accounted for by the tributary inflows or diversion outflows. The most dynamic streamflow gains and losses occurred along the upper few miles of Birch Creek. Streamflow was consistently lost to the groundwater system immediately below Swift Dam and then returned to levels that slightly exceeded the outflow at the dam near river mile 11.0. The overall net gains for the entire 53.3-mile study reach ranged from 15.5 to 42.6 ft 3 /s among the synoptic events. On several occasions, streamflow fell below minimum instream flow conditions specified in the Blackfeet Compact (water rights compact among the Blackfeet Tribe, State of Montana, and United States), which are subject to a 15-year deferral period (until June 12, 2033). Notably, a section of Birch Creek immediately downstream from Swift Dam was completely dry during the October 18, 2022, synoptic event.

Montana↗